CAR_Public/140228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, February 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 42

                             Headlines


BANCO POPULAR: Court Dismisses "Crissen" Class Action
CARBO CERAMICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in SDNY Class Lawsuit
CARDO WINDOWS: NJ Court Narrows Class in "Adami" Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued for Not Paying Retail Employee Commission
CHOBANI INC: Judge Tosses Suit Over Mislabeling in Yogurt Products

CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Reinstates Food Mislabeling Class Action
COOK'S PEST: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENIGMA SOFTWARE: "Sherrod" Plaintiff Gets Extension to File Reply
FACEBOOK INC: Accused by User of Invading Privacy in California
FIRE OF BRAZIL: Fails to Pay Overtime, Waiter/Bartender Claims

FTR ENERGY: Calls Numbers in Do Not Call Registry, Suit Claims
HCA HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in Discovery on Remaining Claims
HIGHER ONE: College Students May Get Share in $15MM Settlement
HUMANA INC: Ignored Policyholders' Cancellation Pleas, Suit Says
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: "Hillier" Stockholder Class Action Dismissed

JP MORGAN: Named in Foreign-Exchange Class Actions
KANGADIS FOOD: Capatriti Olive Oil Lawsuit Goes to Trial
LEAD INDUSTRIES: Court Refuses to Vacate Decertification Order
LEGGETT & PLATT: Class Sought in Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suit
LEGGETT & PLATT: Faces Suit by Polyurethane Foam Buyers in Canada

LEGGETT & PLATT: "Baker" Suit Over Polyurethane Foam in Discovery
LG ELECTRONICS: Bursor Named Interim Class Counsel in "Smith" Case
LIFT VAPOR: Accused of Deceptive Marketing & Sale of E-Cigarettes
LUANN VAN HUNNIK: Court Certifies Class in Sioux Tribe's Suit
MEDICINES COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.

MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in N.Y.
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
NESTLE PURINA: "Miller" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
NYSA CORP: Contacted Class Without Prior Consent, Class Says
OPERATION GET DOWN: Sued by Maintenance and Security Workers

OTTO BOCK: Sued for Not Letting Wearer to Service Own Prosthetics
PPL CORP: Faces Suit in WD Ky Over Clean Air Act Violations
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Removed "Macias" Suit to N.D. California
SIMPLEXGRINNELL: Two Questions Appealed in Wage Class Action
SONIC CORP: Removed "Velazquez" Suit to Central District of Cal.

SOUTH STREET: Sued by Pharmacy Technician Over Unpaid Overtime
STADIUMRED INC: Employs Interns Without Pay, Class Claims in N.Y.
STUART PETROLEUM: Sued for Misclassifying Tester as Contractor
TARGET CORP: Faces "Lambert" Suit in California Over Data Breach
TOTAL WASTE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Manual Laborer Says

UNITED STATES: Veterans Appeal From Judgment for U.S. Army
ZICAM LLC: Falsely Represented Pre-Cold Medicine, Suit Claims

* Canadian Securities Class Action Steady in 2013, NERA Says


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $11MM to Victim in Pneumo Abex Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors in Crane Co. Suit View Victim Deposition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Hinsdale Middle School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Probing Over Fibro in Dickson Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents, Staff Unconcerned With Andy Holt Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Program for Western Victims Expanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Reports $29.7MM Fourth Quarter Profit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sampling Soon to Start at Gogebic Taconite
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Completed in Niagara St. Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHA Forecasts Fibro as Top Legislative Issue

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Pays $63MM to Clean Up Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Buildings at Karabar High
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber's Fibro Case Set for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't. Report Shines Light on Fibro Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deep Wood Elementary Tests Positive for Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Trust & Firms Fined for Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Permitted Discovery of Claim Forms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing Being Conducted in Round Rock
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Violations at Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mr. Fluffy" in Ainslie Shops

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Insurers Sue to Pry Open Bankruptcy Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean-up of Supermarket Delated by Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Judge Declines to Junk Negligence Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin DNR Can't Regulate Mine Sampling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Workplace Killed Worker From Hungerford

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Discovered in Fiji Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cottage Hotel in Seligman to Undergo Survey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Funds Released for Maceo Site Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Towneley Hall Reopens After Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovered at Old Broadmeadows Courthouse

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Fibro Removers Not Insured for Accidents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Baucus Took "Vow" to Help Libby Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Fibro Victim Hunts for Clues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board to Approve Fibro Removal for W.Va. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Victims Face Losing Part of Payout

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Finalizes $930MM Payment to Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McConnell to Pay $125,000 for Illegal Handling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Court Issues Order in 8 Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sides With Union Carbide in Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oroville Branch Library Faces Temporary Closure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Ruling Follows Principles in O'Neill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Gets Jail Time for Illegal Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Subsidiary Paid WRG Trusts $929.7-Mil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $35-Mil Potential Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 51,490 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $699-Mil Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Partially Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Leonard" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Partially OK'd

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Zimmerman" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Baruch" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in NY Litigation Withdrawn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Inmate's Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Protective Order Bid in "Amick" Suit Partly OK'd

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Dismisses "Gregory" Suit


                             *********


BANCO POPULAR: Court Dismisses "Crissen" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed the case captioned
JOSHUA B. CRISSEN, Plaintiff, v. VINOD C. GUPTA, SATYABALA V.
GUPTA, WIPER CORPORATION, VIVEK V. GUPTA, and BANCO POPULAR NORTH
AMERICA, Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-00355-JMS-WGH, (S.D. Ind.).

Mr. Crissen is an individual residing in Bloomfield, Indiana.
Defendants Vinod Gupta and Satyabala Gupta are husband and wife,
and reside in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. and Ms. Gupta are the only
directors and officers of Wiper Corporation, a Florida
corporation. Mr. Crissen alleges that "[Wiper] or its nominees
have participated in tax sales in Indiana from at least 2002
through the present."  Defendant Vivek Gupta is Vinod and
Satyabala Gupta's son, and resides in Boca Raton, Florida as well.
Mr. Crissen alleges that Vivek Gupta "participated in the
operation or management of and performed activities necessary or
helpful to Vinod's and Wiper's tax sale business in Indiana from
at least 2002 through the present." Banco Popular is a New York
state-chartered member bank with its principal place of business
in New York. Mr. Crissen alleges that Banco Popular "participated
in the operation or management of and performed activities
necessary or helpful to Vinod's and Wiper's tax sale business in
Indiana from at least 2002 through the present."

Banco Popular filed the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and 9(b).

Mr. Crissen's claims against Banco Popular are dismissed with
prejudice, ruled Judge Magnus-Stinson, saying Mr. Crissen has
failed to state a claim under the Indiana Crime Victims Act
against Banco Popular.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/OIvF1Yfrom Leagle.com.


CARBO CERAMICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in SDNY Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARBO Ceramics Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2014, that in September 2013,
the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against CARBO Ceramics
Inc. filed a motion requesting leave to file a second amended
complaint and sustain the lawsuit.  In January 2014, the Court
denied plaintiffs' motion, and entered a judgment in favor of the
Company and its officers, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista
III.  The plaintiffs have the right to appeal this judgment for a
period of 30 days from entry.

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

On April 10, 2012, a second purported class-action lawsuit was
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option
contracts during the Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY
Lawsuit", and collectively with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the
"Federal Securities Lawsuit").

In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit
were consolidated, and will proceed as one lawsuit. The Federal
Securities Lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws arising from statements concerning the Company's business
operations and business prospects that were made during the
Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and costs.
In September 2012, the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista
filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The motion to dismiss was
granted, and the Federal Securities Lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice in June 2013.

CARBO Ceramics Inc. is an oilfield services technology company
that generates revenue primarily through the sale of products and
services to the oil and gas industry for production enhancement
and environmental services.


CARDO WINDOWS: NJ Court Narrows Class in "Adami" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
FRED ADAMI and JACK VARNER, Plaintiffs, v. CARDO WINDOWS, INC.
d/b/a "Castle, 'The Window People'" et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO.
12-2804 (JBS/JS), (D. N.J.) is before the Court on plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act
"opt-in" collective action and certification of a Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "opt-out" state wage class
action; Defendants' motion to seal; and Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss Cardo Windows, Inc.'s counter-claims for breach of
contract.

Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective action
because Plaintiffs have made the requisite preliminary factual
showing that the potential collective action members are similarly
situated.  The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion
for certification of a Rule 23 state wage class action in light of
the Supreme Court of New Jersey's recent acceptance of a
certification to determine the appropriate test for whether an
individual is an employee or independent contractor under the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

The Court granted Defendants' motion to seal as to exhibits 13a-
13d and 15 containing IRS 1099 forms of Plaintiffs and non-
parties.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Cardo's counter-
claim for breach of contract against Mr. Varner, but denied
Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Cardo's counter-claim for breach of
contract against Mr. Adami due to additional allegations
implicating a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/7BKGCpfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

   Richard S. Hannye, Esq.
   HANNYE LLC
   128 West Cottage Ave.
   Haddonfield, NJ 08033
   Telephone: (856) 428-1775

Kenneth Goodkind, Esq. -- ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com --
Peter J. Tomasco, Esq. -- peter.tomasco@flastergreenberg.com --
Michael D. Homans, Esq. -- michael.homans@flastergreenberg.com --
FLASTER GREENBERG P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ, Attorneys for Defendants.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued for Not Paying Retail Employee Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chequita Mcadoo, Blake Weldon, Michael De Nova, Rhonda Ashley,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated people v.
Cellco Partnership, Airtouch Cellular, and Verizon Wireless Texas,
LLC, all d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:14-cv-10257-VAR-DRG
(E.D. Mich., January 21, 2014) alleges that in violation of the
law, the Defendants have been ignoring and failing to timely
include each Retail Employee's commission payments in the
employees' respective overtime pay computations.

Basking Ridge, New Jersey-based CELLCO Partnership is a Delaware
General Partnership that operates under the trade name Verizon
Wireless.  Airtouch Cellular, a California Corporation based in
Irvine, California, also operates under the trade name Verizon
Wireless.  Verizon Wireless Texas, LLC, is a Texas Limited
Liability Corporation that also operates under the trade name
Verizon Wireless.  Verizon Wireless Texas has its principal
offices in Alpharetta, Georgia.

Verizon is one of the largest cellular (wireless) providers in the
United States and it sells phone plans and equipment through
company-owned retail stores, mall kiosks, and in-store outlets
located in most major cities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Lance C. Young, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 900
          Southfield, MI 48075-1100
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: lyoung@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  kstoops@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY OF MICHIGAN, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          E-mail: bryan.yaldou@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth P. Hardy, Esq.
          Jay C. Boger, Esq.
          KIENBAUM OPPERWALL HARDY & PELTON, P.L.C.
          280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 645-0000
          Facsimile: (248) 645-1385
          E-mail: ehardy@kohp.com
                  jboger@kohp.com


CHOBANI INC: Judge Tosses Suit Over Mislabeling in Yogurt Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a
California federal judge on Feb. 20 tossed a proposed food
labeling class action against Chobani Inc., finding the plaintiffs
didn't actually rely upon the allegedly fraudulent
misrepresentation for their purchases, among other things.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Chobani's motion to dismiss
all of the claims brought by plaintiffs Katie Kane, Arianna
Rosales and Darla Booth, who alleged that Chobani deceptively
labeled the ingredients in its yogurt products.  This is the
second time the judge has dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs'
third attempt to come up with a satisfactory complaint.

First tackling the plaintiffs' claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law, which prohibits business practices that are
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent, Judge Koh said that to establish
standing under the law's fraud prong, a plaintiff must demonstrate
that he or she actually relied upon the allegedly fraudulent
misrepresentation.

The complaint alleges two theories of reliance with respect to
plaintiffs' claims that the ingredient listed as "evaporated cane
juice" was really just sugar.  The first theory is that the
plaintiffs had no idea that evaporated cane juice was a sweetener,
and the second is that they did not know that evaporated cane
juice was a sweetener but believed it was "some type of ingredient
that was healthier than sugar," the judge said.

The judge said the plaintiffs failed to explain how they could
have realized that dried cane syrup was a form of sugar, but
believed that evaporated cane juice was not.

Turning to the "healthier than sugar" theory, the judge said the
plaintiffs failed to provide any allegations in support, other
than to add the new allegation that "because of the fact [the
yogurt labels] used the term 'juice,' it sounded like something
healthy.  She next turned to the plaintiffs' claims that Chobani's
"all natural" advertisements were deceptive because the products
were artificially colored using fruit or vegetable juice
concentrate.

The judge's order said the plaintiffs' statement that the turmeric
and fruit and vegetable juice concentrate used for color in the
yogurt is more akin to "coal tar dyes" than the "fruits and
vegetables they were supposedly derived from," is conclusory.

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the state's False
Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act for the same
reasons.

The plaintiffs are represented by Darren Brown of Provost Umphrey
Law Firm LLP and Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates.

Chobani Inc. is represented by Dale Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com
-- Michael Resch -- mresch@mayerbrown.com -- Steven Rich --
srich@mayerbrown.com -- and Andrew Edelstein --
AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Kane et al. v. Chobani Inc., case number 5:12-cv-
02425, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Reinstates Food Mislabeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Peil, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that a state claim for misrepresenting the nutritional information
on sunflower seed packaging was not preempted by federal law, the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Feb. 20.

The panel reinstated Aleta Lilly's class action complaint against
ConAgra Foods.  It reasoned that requiring the company to include
the sodium content from sunflower seed shells would not impose a
greater burden than that already imposed by federal law.

"Some days we are called upon to consider such profound issues as
eleventh-hour death penalty appeals, catastrophic threats to the
environment, intense and existential questions of civil and human
rights," Judge Barry Silverman explained for the panel.  ". . .
[Fri]day we consider the coating on sunflower seeds."

Lilly claims ConAgra violated California law by misrepresenting
the sodium content of its sunflower seeds by focusing exclusively
on the kernels and not the shells.  Judge Silverman said the claim
was not preempted.  He explained that federal law required that
sodium listings include the "edible portion" of food, and that
while shells are inedible, the coating on the shells was consumed
and must be accounted for in the sodium information.

Sitting by designation, Senior District Judge C. Roger Vinson of
the Northern District of Florida, dissented.  He agreed with the
district judge that Lilly sought to impose additional labeling
requirements by incorporating the shells into the sodium
calculation.

That, he argued, went beyond the requirements of the Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 343.

Lilly sued Conagra as the representative of a class of consumers,
alleging that the company misrepresented the listing of sodium
content on its "David" brand of seeds, where it failed to disclose
the proper sodium content by not accounting for the salt on the
shells in the same way that it did for the kernels.

Lilly alleged that the misrepresentations were in violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California Civil Code Sec. 1750,
California's False Advertising Laws, and the Unfair Competition
Law.

The complaint quoted the directions from the package as being
"[C]rack the shell with your teeth, eat the seed and spit the
shell."  Lilly alleged that, following these instructions,
consumers were ingesting some, if not all, of the sodium from the
sunflower shells without knowledge of the true quantity of salt.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, later amended in
1990 with the enactment of the Nutrition Labeling and Education
Act, governs food labeling and requires most food packages to have
a nutritional facts listed on the label.  The statute provides
that no state may establish requirements for food labeling that
are "not identical to" federal requirements.

The FDA regulates the manner in which sodium servings are to be
calculated, stating in 21 C.F.R. Section 101.12(a)(6) that the
sodium content shall only be based on the ingredients present in
the edible portion of food, and not the bone, seed, or shell.

Silverman, explaining that the salt coating was part of the edible
portion of food, said:

"[T]he coatings impart flavor and are indisputably intended to be
ingested as part of the sunflower seed eating experience.  Indeed,
these coatings come in flavors such as 'Ranch' and 'Nacho Cheese'
precisely because they are to be consumed before the shell is
discarded.  The shell is not edible, but the coating is and is
intended to be."

Judge Vinson argued that a plain reading should be of the
regulation that disallows shells from being incorporated into the
sodium calculation, saying:

"[W]e might prefer a regulation that includes the shell's absorbed
salt and to draw a distinction between an edible 'coating' and an
inedible shell, we are nonetheless bound to apply this unambiguous
regulation objectively as it has been written.  In my view, it is
not currently written to allow such a nuanced distinction."

The case is Lilly v. ConAgra Foods, Inc, 12-55921.


COOK'S PEST: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Hertweck, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Cook's Pest Control, Inc., A Foreign Corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-01014-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn., January 21, 2014) is brought by
the Plaintiff against his former employer for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff
seeks damages, reasonable attorney's fees, declaratory relief, and
other relief under the FLSA.

Cook's Pest Control, Inc., is an Alabama corporation doing
business in the state of Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara Anne T. Quinn, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW O'MARA STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC-Memphis
          6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (615) 244-9270
          Facsimile: (615) 256-8197
          E-mail: saraanne.quinn@butlersnow.com


ENIGMA SOFTWARE: "Sherrod" Plaintiff Gets Extension to File Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole A. Sherrod filed a putative class action complaint on
January 14, 2013, bringing claims of breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, fraud, and misrepresentation against Enigma
Software Group USA, LLC on behalf of herself and similarly
situated consumers.  In consultation with the parties, Magistrate
Judge Kemp issued an Agreed Order granting, in part, and denying,
in part, the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery.
This Order narrowed the Plaintiff's discovery requests to focus on
information concerning her transactions with the Defendant.
On November 6, the Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion for
Discovery.  On December 19, Magistrate Judge Kemp issued an
Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiff's Motion and directing the
Plaintiff to file a response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment within 21 days. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion
for Reconsideration on January 2, 2014.  On January 8, one day
before the Plaintiff was obligated to file her response to the
Defendant's summary judgment motion, the Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply.

Judge James L. Graham denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration but granted her motion for extension of time. The
Court granted the Plaintiff 14 days to file a response to the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case is Nicole A. Sherrod, Plaintiff, v. Enigma Software Group
USA, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-36, (S.D. Ohio), District

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/ZW9FwGfrom Leagle.com.


FACEBOOK INC: Accused by User of Invading Privacy in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Shadpour, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00307-PJH (N.D. Cal.,
January 21, 2014) alleges that contrary to its representations,
"private" Facebook messages are in fact scanned by the Company in
an effort to glean, store and capitalize on the contents of its
user's communications.

Mr. Shadpour avers that Facebook scanned or otherwise reviewed
private Facebook messages.  These actions, he contends, are
intentional interceptions of electronic communications, committed
in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Menlo
Park, California.  Facebook owns and operates an online social
networking Web site that allows its users to communicate with each
other through the sharing of text, photograph, and video.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


FIRE OF BRAZIL: Fails to Pay Overtime, Waiter/Bartender Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fire of Brazil II, LLC d/b/a Jalapeno Charlie's, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00174-TWT (N.D. Ga., January 21, 2014) seeks
declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay federally mandated overtime
wages to the Plaintiff and the Collective Class in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2009 through
September 27, 2013, as a waiter and bartender.

Fire of Brazil II, LLC, doing business as Jalapeno Charlie's, is a
Georgia corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin F. Barrett, Esq.
          Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
          Abigail J. Larimer, Esq.
          BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 214-0120
          Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
          E-mail: ben@bf-llp.com
                  amanda@bf-llp.com
                  abigail@bf-llp.com


FTR ENERGY: Calls Numbers in Do Not Call Registry, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Charvat, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. FTR Energy Services,
LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00073-SRU (D. Conn., January 21, 2014) is
brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in
1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

In violation of the TCPA, FTR Energy placed telemarketing calls to
a number he registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, Mr.
Charvat alleges.  He asserts that he never consented to receive
these calls.

FTR Energy Services, LLC is an energy company headquartered in
Stamford, Connecticut.  FTR Energy offers energy utility services
to residential customers throughout Ohio, Illinois, and New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Topiano, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BALZANO & TOPIANO, P.C.
          321 Whitney Avenue
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 891-6336
          Facsimile: (203) 891-6136
          E-mail: rtropiano@balzanoandtropiano.com
                  baltieri@balzanoandtropiano.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617)738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


HCA HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in Discovery on Remaining Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee granted the motion to dismiss, in part, a consolidated
securities suit against HCA Holdings, Inc. and the action is now
proceeding to discovery on the remaining claims, according to the
company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.
Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.

All three of the cases were consolidated. On May 3, 2012, the
court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension
Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. On July 13,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further
asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules
Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the
time of the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on September 11, 2012. The Court granted the
motion in part on May 28, 2013. The action is proceeding to
discovery on the remaining claims.


HIGHER ONE: College Students May Get Share in $15MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Smith, writing for MLive.com, reports that college students
at a number of institutions across Michigan are potentially in
line to benefit from a settlement in a multi-state class action
lawsuit against a Connecticut financial services company.

Higher One, which contracts with colleges to distribute financial
aid refunds through university-branded debit cards, will pay $15
million to settle a suit alleging the company improperly charged
fees and made misleading statements about account costs and fees.

In Michigan, the company has partnered with Wayne State
University, Eastern Michigan University, Baker College, Lansing
Community College, Macomb Community College, Grand Rapids
Community College, Aquinas College, Davenport University,
Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Muskegon Community College,
Spring Arbor University, St. Clair County Community College, North
Central Michigan College and Madonna University.

A motion filed on Feb. 14 in a Connecticut federal court by the
plaintiffs in a multi-state lawsuit asks for approval of a $15
million settlement to reimburse students for ATM access fees and
fees charged for PIN-based transactions, as well as account
maintenance and inactivity charges.

The settlement is expected to cost the company $66 million over
the next two years in reduced fees, according to documents filed
with the court.

All students who had a Higher One account and were charged one of
the fees between 2006 and August 2012 will be eligible to receive
part of the settlement. Students will be contacted by email or
postcard to notify them of the settlement.


HUMANA INC: Ignored Policyholders' Cancellation Pleas, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel L. Doyle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Humana Inc., Serve: Registered Agent, CSC Lawyers
Incorporating Service Co., 221 Bolivar Street, Jefferson City, MO
65101, Case No. 4:14-cv-00061-BP (W.D. Mo., January 21, 2014)
alleges that Humana developed and implemented an unfair and
unlawful scheme designed to increase revenues from health
insurance premiums.

Humana's scheme consisted of significantly increasing health
insurance premiums to coincide with the January 1, 2014 inception
date for the individual mandate of the Affordable Health Care Act,
Mr. Doyle contends.  He alleges that Humana policyholders, who
desired to cancel their policies were unable to because Humana
failed to provide policyholders with a reasonable method to do so
or ignored policyholders' cancellation requests.  He adds that
Humana continued to take automatic deductions from policyholders'
accounts or social security checks, and Humana invoiced
policyholders for alleged "past due" premiums.

Humana is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.  Humana markets health insurance in all 50
states and is one of the largest health insurance carriers in the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          Michael A. Williams, Esq.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
                  mwilliams@williamsdirks.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas M. Weems, Esq.
          J. Loyd Gattis, III, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE LLP
          1000 Walnut St., Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
          Telephone: (816) 292-8264
          Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
          E-mail: dweems@spencerfane.com
                  lgattis@spencerfane.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: "Hillier" Stockholder Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company with
a focus on supportive care products for cancer patients, on
Feb. 21 announced that the previously reported stockholder class
action lawsuit (Hillier v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated et al)
that had been filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona was on February 20, 2014, voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff and thereafter terminated by the court.  No payment or
consideration of any kind was made by any of the defendants in
connection with the dismissal.


JP MORGAN: Named in Foreign-Exchange Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Christina Rexrode, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said it has been named in a number of
class-action lawsuits over its foreign-exchange trading business.
The bank has also received requests for information about its
foreign-exchange trading from authorities both inside and outside
the U.S., the bank said in a regulatory filing early on Feb. 20.

J.P. Morgan said it is cooperating with regulatory investigations.

The bank also said it has been contacted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Office of the Special Inspector
General of the TARP bailout about its "communications with
counterparties" in connection with certain trading of mortgage-
backed securities.


KANGADIS FOOD: Capatriti Olive Oil Lawsuit Goes to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on February 25, 2014, denied the
defendant's motion for summary judgment in Ebin v. Kangadis Food,
Inc. d/b/a The Gourmet Factory, clearing the way for a jury trial
later this year on claims that Kangadis packed containers of
Capatriti "100% Pure Olive Oil" with an industrially processed
substance known as pomace oil, instead of pure olive oil.

On December 11, 2013, Judge Rakoff granted a motion to certify a
nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti "100% Pure Olive Oil"
against Kangadis Food.  The class claims relate to Kangadis's
admitted practice of packing these containers with an industrially
processed substance known as pomace oil, instead of pure olive
oil.  Judge Rakoff also previously granted the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the nationwide class to appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
as Class Counsel.  More than $80 million in sales were made to the
nationwide class.

"This summary judgment order is a huge victory for millions of
purchasers who were defrauded by Kangadis's admitted practice of
filling these tins with low-quality pomace oil instead of 100%
pure olive oil," said Scott A. Bursor, one of the firm's partners
handling the matter. "This product contained zero percent olive
oil. We will prove that at trial in 2014, and we will seek a full
refund for every member of the class."

                    About Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Bursor & Fisher, P.A. lawyers have represented plaintiffs in class
action lawsuits since 2002.  On the Net: http://www.bursor.com/

Contact:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: 212-989-9113
     Email: scott@bursor.com


LEAD INDUSTRIES: Court Refuses to Vacate Decertification Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2013, the judge in Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries
Association, et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
County Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 00CH09800) denied
plaintiffs' motion to vacate the decertification of the class but
set a status conference for November 2013, according to NL
Industries, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Class Sought in Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification have been filed in In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, according to Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's
Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20
defendants alleging that competitors of the company's carpet
underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and
Canadian antitrust laws.

A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most
without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, the company has
been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class
action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated
amended class action complaint on behalf of a class of all direct
purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b) an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011; and an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23,
2011; (c) 39 individual direct purchaser cases filed between March
22, 2011 and October 16, 2013; and (d) two individual cases
alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the
other on April 11, 2013. All of the pending U.S. federal cases in
which the company has been named as a defendant, have been filed
in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196.

In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of
unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May
6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated
case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July
19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery
is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class certification
have been filed on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers.
A hearing on the motions were expected to be held in December
2013.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Faces Suit by Polyurethane Foam Buyers in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated faces lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in Canada,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The company was named in two Canadian class action cases (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products),
both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164
(amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30,
2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive
damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the
costs of the investigation and the action. The company is not yet
required to file the company's defenses in the Canadian actions.
In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case
(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)
styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits
Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended
motion for authorization seeking to add the company and other
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this
case.


LEGGETT & PLATT: "Baker" Suit Over Polyurethane Foam in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification in a suit filed by Dennis Baker against Leggett &
Platt, Incorporated the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson
County, Missouri, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 22, 2012, the company was made party to a lawsuit brought
in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case
Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class
of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State
of Missouri, alleged that the company violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act based upon the company's alleged
illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages
and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. The company filed a
motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on November 5,
2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for
class certification.


LG ELECTRONICS: Bursor Named Interim Class Counsel in "Smith" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on December 9, 2013, appointed
Bursor & Fisher to serve as Interim Class Counsel in Smith v. LG
Electronics USA, Inc. to represent a proposed nationwide class of
purchasers of LG and Kenmore washing machines.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants LG Electronics and Sears
misrepresent the functionality of six of their top-loading
automatic clothes washing machines. The affected models include LG
brand WT5001CW, WT5101HV, and WT5101HW and Kenmore Elite brand
models 29002, 29272, and 29278. Specifically, the plaintiff claims
that the machines shake and vibrate excessively during use and
that defendants' attempt to fix the problem prevents the machines
from spinning fast enough to remove excess water from clothing at
the end of the wash cycle.

"We are pleased that Judge Hamilton appointed our firm as Interim
Class Counsel in this case," L. Timothy Fisher, one of the firm's
partners handling the matter, said in a statement at that time.
"We have experience handling similar claims and we intend to
litigate this case aggressively to seek justice for the people who
purchased these defective appliances."

He may be reached at:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Tel: 925-300-4455
     E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com


LIFT VAPOR: Accused of Deceptive Marketing & Sale of E-Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Ronzheimer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lift Vapor LLC, a Connecticut limited
liability company, Case No. 0:14-cv-00200-SRN-LIB (D. Minn.,
January 21, 2014) is based upon the Company's alleged deceptive
marketing and sale of its electronic cigarette products.

Lift Vapor LLC is a Connecticut limited liability company
headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.  Lift Vapor advertises its
e-cigarette products through a variety of web sites, including
http://www.liftvaporblog.com/and
http://www.ecigarettesfreetrials.com/

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richamn, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  nlarry@edelson.com


LUANN VAN HUNNIK: Court Certifies Class in Sioux Tribe's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken certified the class in the
case captioned OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE and ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, as
parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members; and
ROCHELLE WALKING EAGLE, MADONNA PAPPAN, and LISA YOUNG,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LUANN VAN HUNNIK; MARK VARGO; HON. JEFF
DAVIS; and KIM MALSAM-RYSDON, in their official capacities,
Defendants, CIV. NO. 13-5020-JLV, (D. S.D.).

The complaint asserts defendants' policies, practices and
procedures relating to the removal of Native American children
from their homes during 48-hour hearings violate the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA).  Specifically, plaintiffs contend defendants' "policies,
practices, and customs . . . (1) remov[e] Indian children from
their homes without affording them, their parents, or their tribe
a timely and adequate hearing as required by the Due Process
Clause, (2) remov[e] Indian children from their homes without
affording them, their parents, or their tribe a timely and
adequate hearing as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and
(3) remov[e] Indian children from their homes without affording
them, their parents, or their tribe a timely and adequate hearing
and then coerce the parents into waiving their rights under the
Due Process Clause and Indian Child Welfare Act to such a
hearing."

Judge Viken ruled that the action will be maintained as a class
action on behalf of the following class of plaintiffs:
Rochelle Walking Eagle, Madonna Pappan and Lisa Young and all
other members of federally recognized Indian tribes who reside in
Pennington County, South Dakota, and who, like plaintiffs, are
parents or custodians of Indian children.

Class certification is granted for the purpose of litigating the
following issues in this case:

     a. Whether defendants maintain policies, practices or customs
related to the removal of Indian children from their homes without
affording them, their parents, custodians, or tribes a timely and
adequate hearing in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause;

     b. Whether defendants maintain policies, practices or customs
related to the removal of Indian children from their homes without
affording them, their parents, custodians or tribes a timely and
adequate hearing in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act; and

     c. Whether defendants maintain policies, practices or customs
which coerce parents or custodians into waiving their rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Indian Child
Welfare Act to such a hearing.

Rochelle Walking Eagle, Madonna Pappan and Lisa Young are
designated as class representatives. Dana Hanna, Stephen L. Pevar
and Rachel E. Goodman are designated as class counsel.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/lhc7vyfrom Leagle.com.


MEDICINES COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against The Medicines Company and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court,
District of New Jersey, and docketed under 2:33-av-00001, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Medicines securities between
February 20, 2013 and February 12, 2014 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Medicines securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 22, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

The Medicines Company is a global pharmaceutical company focused
on providing medical solutions for critical care patients in acute
and intensive care hospitals worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cangrelor, Medicines drug
candidate designed to prevent blood clots during heart artery-
clearing angioplasty and stenting procedures, did not show
superiority to clopidogrel, a competing drug already approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; (2) The Company's CHAMPION
clinical trials which compared the efficacy of Cangrelor to
clopidogrel were unethically and inappropriately administered
including by delaying administration of clopidogrel and lowering
its dosage; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Medicines'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 10, 2014, the FDA released briefing documents ahead of
a review by its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee,
which was scheduled to review the New Drug Application for
Cangrelor on February 12, 2014. In the briefing document,
Thomas A. Marciniak, M.D., the FDA's Medical Team Leader for the
review, found that Cangrelor did not show superiority to
clopidogrel, and that the clinical trials sponsored by Medicines
were unethically and inappropriately administered, including by
delaying administration of clopidogrel and the lowering of the
dosage of clopidogrel in the CHAMPION trial.  According to
Dr. Marciniak, "the CHAMPION trials were conducted unethically.
We can refuse approval of Cangrelor based on that fact alone."

On this news, Medicines securities declined $1.80, or over 5%, on
heavy volume, to close at $32.42 on February 10, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the Company issued a press release
announcing that NASDAQ has halted trading of the company's stock
because an FDA advisory panel was meeting to discuss the new drug
application for Cangrelor.  Later, on February 12, 2014, the FDA
advisory panel voted 7-2 that Medicines' Cangrelor shouldn't be
approved to prevent blood clots during heart procedures.

On this news, when trading resumed on February 13, 2014, Medicines
securities declined $3.82, or over 11.5% from the previous close,
on very heavy volume, to close at $29.28 on February 13, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased
shares of Montage Technology Group Limited during the period
between September 26, 2013 and February 6, 2014, inclusive.

If you purchased shares of Montage and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights,
contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218
or to sign up online, visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mont
You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

Montage provides analog and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions.
The Company specializes in analog and radio frequency solutions,
digital signal processors and high speed interfaces.  The
complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that Montage issued materially
false and misleading statements about its true financial condition
by overstating revenue and earnings.  On February 6, 2014, Gravity
Research Group issued a report asserting, among others things,
that Montage's largest distributor is a shell company used to
fabricate the Company's financial results, and that the Company's
largest customer is an undisclosed related party.  The lawsuit
claims that this adverse information caused the price of Montage
securities to drop, damaging investors.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 8,
2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.  Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to
protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors
in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Feb. 20 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Montage Technology Group Limited on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
during the period from September 26, 2013 through February 6,
2014.

Montage provides analog and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions.
The Company specializes in analog and radio frequency solutions,
digital signal processors and high speed interfaces.

The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that Montage issued materially
false and misleading statements about its true financial condition
by overstating revenue and earnings.  On February 6, 2014, Gravity
Research Group issued a report asserting, among others things,
that Montage's largest distributor is a shell company used to
fabricate the Company's financial results, and that the Company's
largest customer is an undisclosed related party.  The lawsuit
claims that this adverse information caused the price of Montage
securities to drop, damaging investors.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Montage stock between September 26, 2013 and
February 6, 2014, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Montage common stock during the Class Period of
September 26, 2013 through February 6, 2014, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than April 8, 2014.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.


NESTLE PURINA: "Miller" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Henry Edward Autrey granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned CYRUS MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,
Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13CV283 HEA, (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action Complaint under the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act against Defendant alleging
that Defendant's Beneful line of wet and dry dog food products
caused and continue to cause illness and/or death in a significant
number of dogs who consume the products.

"Plaintiff's claim that Defendant misrepresented the quality of
its Beneful dog food products places this action squarely within
the parameters of Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's
requirement of specificity in pleading," said Judge Autrey.
"Clearly, Plaintiff has not done so. Although Plaintiff argues
that he had complied with the specificity requirements of Rule 9,
the allegations fall woefully below Rule 9's requirements.
Plaintiff fails to detail what misrepresentations were made, where
the statements were made, to whom, they were made and why they
were misleading, and how the alleged misrepresentations were made
to Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation are
insufficient to state a claim."

The Plaintiff was given 14 days from the date of the Opinion,
Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint. Failure to file
an Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of this action with
prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Opinion,
Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/VgDn1wfrom
Leagle.com.


NYSA CORP: Contacted Class Without Prior Consent, Class Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd M. Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similar
situated v. NYSA Corporation dba thebillcoach.com, and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:14-cv-00097-
JLS-RNB (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2014) seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently knowingly, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

NYSA Corporation, doing business as thebillcoach.com, is a
California corporation based in Irvine, California.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          David L. Weisberg, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 221
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310)507-7924
          Facsimile: (310)507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  david@kristensenlaw.com


OPERATION GET DOWN: Sued by Maintenance and Security Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Randal Joyce and David Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Operation Get Down, Inc and Sandra
Bomar Parker, Case No. 4:14-cv-10274-MAG-LJM (E.D. Mich.,
January 21, 2014) is brought on behalf of current and former
employees of Operation Get Down Inc, who worked as maintenance
workers, security personnel and in other positions at various
facilities owned or operated by the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required or permitted
the Plaintiffs to work hours for which they either were not paid
at least minimum wage, and required or permitted the Plaintiffs to
work hours in excess of 40 hours per week, but failed to
compensate them at least minimum wage for all hours worked or at a
rate of one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours over 40 per week.

Operation Get Down Inc is a Michigan Nonprofit Corporation with
its principal office in Detroit, Michigan.  Operation Get Down Inc
provides prisoner re-entry services, transitional housing,
inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment programs,
psychotherapy, motivational services, family counseling and other
services.  Sandra Bomar Parker is the Resident Agent, CEO, and
Authorized Officer or Agent of Operation Get Down Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maia E. Johnson, Esq.
          David A. Hardesty, Esq.
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
                  dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Shekell, Esq.
          Reginald M. Turner, Jr., Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965-8803
          Facsimile: (313) 309-6833
          E-mail: bshekell@clarkhill.com
                  rturner@clarkhill.com


OTTO BOCK: Sued for Not Letting Wearer to Service Own Prosthetics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Burgess, and William Everden, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated and behalf of the general public of
the United States, Chris Doe, Bob Doe, Bob Doe2, Ruth Doe, Ross
Doe, and Bruce Doe, Class Member Real Parties in Interest v. Otto
Bock Healthcare, US; Endolite America a.k.a. Chas A Blatchford &
Sons, Ltd; Ossur Americas; Fillauer Group; Trulife; Health Net
Inc; Integrated Health Holdings Inc, D/B/A/ Western Medical Center
Santa Ana; Norm's Resturants Inc; Ebay Inc.; Paypal Inc;
Aliexpress.com, and; Does, 1 to 10, Case No. 5:14-cv-00302-EJD
(N.D. Cal., January 21, 2014) is brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California
Disabled Persons Act, among other laws.

Otto Bock has created and utilizes a discriminatory marketing
model for its lower extremity prosthetics products in that while
U.S. law does not require any kind of certified person be utilized
for a wearer to service their own prosthetic, Otto Bock will not
allow the owner-wearer of the product the information, software or
assistance from the Company to allow the wearer to service their
own item, the Plaintiffs allege.  Instead, the Plaintiffs contend,
Otto Bock insists on all sales and work be done through one of its
"certified practitioners," who will charge a fee for everything
and seek to bill an insurance carrier or often will not provide
service if no insurance carrier is available to be billed.

Otto Bock Healthcare US is part of a global company that a man
named Otto Bock founded as a company named Orthopadische Industrie
GmbH in Berlin in 1919, and today has an American Office in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Duderstat, Germany-based Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Garrett Skelly, Esq.
          160 Centennial Way, Suite 21
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 730-3708
          Facsimile: (714) 730-3708
          E-mail garrettgskelly@aol.com

Defendant Otto Bock Healthcare is represented by:

          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH
          221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: kizirian@lbbslaw.com

Defendants Endolite America, also known as Blatchford & Sons,
Ltd., Ossur America, and Trulife Inc., are represented by:

          Robert Lennart Green, Esq.
          GREEN & HALL
          1851 East First Street, 10th Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 918-7000
          Facsimile: (714) 918-6996
          E-mail: rlgreen@greenhall.com

Defendant Fillauer Group is represented by:

          Stephen D. Barham, Esq.
          CHAMBLISS BAHNER & STOPHEL, P.C.
          Liberty Tower, Suite 1700
          605 Chestnut Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37450
          Telephone: (423) 756-3000
          E-mail: sbarham@chamblisslaw.com

Defendant HealthNet of California is represented by:

          Sandra Ilene Weishart, Esq.
          BARGER & WOLEN LLP
          633 W 5th St., 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3510
          Telephone: (213) 680-2800
          E-mail: Sweishart@barwol.com

Defendant Norm's Restaurants Inc. is represented by:

          Laurie Elza, Esq.
          CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES
          Main Corporate Office
          400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 415
          South San Francisco, CA 94080
          Telephone: (650) 871-9544
          Facsimile: (650) 871-9552
          E-mail: lelza1@cholakian.net

Defendants Ebay, Inc. and Paypal Inc. are represented by:

          Ryan David Marsh, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          525 University Ave., 4th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 463-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: rdmarsh@hhlaw.com

Defendant AliExpress is represented by:

          Michael Fang Peng, Esq.
          Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN, LLP
          1307-08 Two Exchange Square
          8 Connaught Place
          Hong Kong 852 3464 5600
          E-mail: michaelpeng@quinnemanuel.com
                  careyramos@quinnemanuel.com


PPL CORP: Faces Suit in WD Ky Over Clean Air Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation and its affiliated companies disclosed in a Form
10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2014, that on September 6, 2013, PPL Corporation, LG&E and KU
Energy LLC, and Louisville Gas and Electric Company received a
letter on behalf of two residents adjacent to the Cane Run plant
notifying various federal, state, and local agencies of their
intent to file a citizen suit for alleged violations of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
On December 16, 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky for alleged violations of the CAA and RCRA.  In
addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance,
trespass, and negligence.  These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and civil penalties that would accrue to governmental agencies,
plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory
violations.  Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek
monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the plant.  In their individual capacities,
these plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged adverse health
effects.  PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this
matter or the potential impact on operations of the Cane Run
plant.  LG&E has previously announced that it anticipates retiring
the coal-fired units at Cane Run before the end of 2015.

The affiliated companies are: PPL Energy Supply, LLC, PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation, LG&E and KU Energy LLC, and Louisville Gas
and Electric Company, Kentucky Utilities Company.

PPL Corporation, headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, is an
energy and utility holding company that was incorporated in 1994.
Through subsidiaries, PPL delivers electricity to customers in the
U.K., Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee; delivers
natural gas to customers in Kentucky; generates electricity from
power plants in the northeastern, northwestern and southeastern
U.S.; and markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and northwestern portions of the U.S.


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Removed "Macias" Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Macias, et al. v. Recreational
Equipment, Inc., Case No. 113CV256526, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Jose).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00300-
PSG to the proceeding.

Macias, et al., assert claims for employment discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are not represented by any law firm.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: farberm@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          David Teng Wang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: david.wang@jacksonlewis.com


SIMPLEXGRINNELL: Two Questions Appealed in Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
questions filed in a class action lawsuit against SimplexGrinnell
that was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit have been certified.

John Doe Bonding Companies 1 through 3 were also named as
defendants in the suit.

On June 21, 2011, an order granting summary judgment in favor of
SimplexGrinnell on breach of contract claims relating to its
alleged failure to pay the plaintiffs prevailing wages for texting
and inspection work performed was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

Senior Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi said the case raises two
questions of New York law that are unsettled and of importance to
the relationship between the state's administrative agencies and
its courts, as well as to the functioning of New York's labor law.

"It asks, first, whether a court should give deference not only to
any agency's substantive interpretation of a statute arising from
an unrelated proceeding, but also to its decision to enforce that
interpretation only prospectively," the certification states.

"And it asks, second, whether contracts committing parties to pay
prevailing wages pursuant to section 220 of the New York Labor Law
need to specify -- what particular work the prevailing wages will
be paid for."

The case was initially brought by workers who installed,
maintained, repaired, tested and inspected fire alarm and
suppression systems in public and private buildings in New York
for SimplexGrinnell.

The plaintiffs claimed since at least February 2001,
SimplexGrinnell did not pay them prevailing wages for their labor
on public works in violation of New York Labor Law Section 220.

The case was originally brought in New York state court in 2007
and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, where the parties consented to the
jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Steven Gold.

Among other claims, the plaintiffs claimed third-party breach of
contract claims based on the defendant's failure to pay prevailing
wages and, because the plaintiffs had chosen to bring the third-
party breach of contract suit to court, rather than in an Article
78 proceeding before the Department of Labor, the DOL had no
formal role in the proceeding, according to court documents.

While in litigation, Simplex asked the DOL for clarification, and
the plaintiffs "were not privy to these communications between
Simplex and the DOL."

"As part of these communications, Simplex provided the DOL with
matrices reflecting its views of what work was 'covered' by the
statute and therefore entitled to the payment of prevailing wages,
and what work was not," the certification states.  "In the
matrices provided by Simplex, testing and inspection work was not
listed as covered.  The DOL posted the matrices on its website."

Patricia Smith, the then-commissioner of the DOL, ordered the
matrices to be removed and decided to issue an opinion letter on
the matter.

In the letter, the DOL concluded that testing and inspection work
was covered under section 220 of the NYLL and hence, entitled to
payment of the prevailing wage, according to the document.

After the DOL issued its opinion letter to Simplex, the parties
completed discovery in the Eastern District and filed cross
motions for summary judgment.

Simplex relied on the DOL's opinion letter in its motion, and the
district court granted Simplex's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
claims relating to testing and inspection work.

The district court held that the plaintiffs' testing and
inspection claims for the period of litigation could not proceed
since the agency -- in its own enforcement subsequent to its
Dec. 31, 2009, ruling -- was requiring the prevailing wages only
be paid prospectively, according to the document.

"Whatever the merits of either of these approaches, the scope of
deference to be given here in unclear to us.  This is especially
so because -- unlike a case that begins as a review of proceeding
under Article 78, and in which after the agency has held a hearing
and has made a determination, judicial review is limited to
whether that determination was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse
of discretion . . . this case began in court," the document
states.

Significantly, while the state Court of Appeals has made clear
that some deference is due to an agency determination even when
the case was begun in court, the deference the district court paid
here related not solely to the substantive conclusion drawn by the
agency, but also to the agency's decision to enforce the statute
in its own proceeding solely in the future, the order says.

"Whether such deference should be given to any agency is an
unsettled matter in New York courts," the document states.  "The
issue, then, seems appropriate for certification.  Certification
permits us to invite state courts to clarify and establish their
own law."

The plaintiffs, Roberto Ramos, Frank Rodriguez, Jose Luis
Maldonado, Jose Fernandez, Chris Maietta, Randy Wray, Rogelio
Smith, Agban Agban, Yadira Gonzalez, Maximo Estrella Jr., Jaime Oy
Arvide, Nacim Bennekaa, Breno Zimerer and Omar Florez, are being
represented by Raymond Charles Fay -- rfay@faylawdc.com -- of Fay
Law Group and Taryn C. Wilgus Nill of Mehri & Skalet PLLC.

Simplex is being represented by Dominick C. Capozzola and Edward
Cerasia II -- edward.cerasia@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 12-4901
This entry was posted in Class Action, New York, News and tagged
Dominick C. Capozzola, Guido Calabresi, Raymond Charles Fay,
SimplexGrinnell, Taryn C. Wilgus.


SONIC CORP: Removed "Velazquez" Suit to Central District of Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Edgar Velazquez v. Sonic
Corp., et al., Case No. BC531082, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
00469-DSF-SH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian S. Fong, Esq.
          Craig J. Mariam, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          633 West 5th Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000
          Facsimile: (877) 306-0043
          E-mail: bfong@gordonrees.com
                  cmariam@gordonrees.com


SOUTH STREET: Sued by Pharmacy Technician Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chandrell Hooper, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. South Street Pharmacy, LLC, a for Mississippi Profit
Corporation and Michael Clark, Case No. 4:14-cv-00010-GHD-JMV
(N.D. Miss., January 21, 2014) is brought for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff was a
pharmacy technician and performed related activities for the
Defendants in Cleveland, Mississippi.

South Street Pharmacy, LLC, has its headquarters in Cleveland,
Mississippi.  Michael Clark, a resident of Sunflower County,
Mississippi, owns and operates South Street Pharmacy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher William Espy, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER W. ESPY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          P.O. Box 13722
          Jackson, MS 39236-3772
          Telephone: (601) 812-5300
          Facsimile: (601) 500-5719
          E-mail: chris.espy@espylawpllc.com


STADIUMRED INC: Employs Interns Without Pay, Class Claims in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Birch and Eric Froebel on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Stadiumred, Inc., Stadiumred Life
LLC, Stadiumred Live LLC, Stadiumred Music LLC, Stadiumred Studios
LLC, Claude Zdanow, and Marc Zdanow, Case No. 1:14-cv-00379-HB
(S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

By employing interns like the Plaintiffs without pay, the
Defendants illegally reduced labor costs on their productions, the
Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs assert that interns are
important source of labor on the Defendants' productions and
performed important tasks, like cleaning the studio and acting as
engineers for recording sessions.

Stadiumred, is a multifaceted business that includes Stadiumred
Studios LLC, an "award winning production, recording, mixing, and
mastering studio," Stadiumred Music LLC, "an artist management and
development division," Stadiumred Life LLC, "a marketing and
events division," and Stadium Live LLC, "a music technology
division."  Claude Zdanow is the founder and CEO of Stadiumred,
Inc. and Marc Zdanow is the Director and COO of Stadiumred, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW PLLC
          305 Broadway, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 822-1496
          Facsimile: (212) 822-1407
          E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com

               - and -

          Maurice Pianko, Esq.
          PIANKO LAW GROUP PLLC
          55 Broad Street, #13F
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 801-9675
          Facsimile: (973) 689-8874
          E-mail: mpianko@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Jeffrey Shenker, Esq.
          ALAN B. PEARL & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          6800 Jericho Tpke., Suite 218e
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 921-6645
          Facsimile: (516) 921-6774
          E-mail: bshenker@pearl-law.com


STUART PETROLEUM: Sued for Misclassifying Tester as Contractor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Martin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00067-LY (W.D. Tex., January 21, 2014) accuses the Company of
misclassifying the Plaintiff as an independent contractor.  The
Plaintiff was an hourly paid employee, who monitors oil and gas
wells.

Stuart Petroleum required him to work more than 40 hours in a
workweek as a flow tester but as a misclassified independent
contractor, he was paid straight time for overtime hours worked,
Mr. Martin contends.

Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc. is a domestic for-profit
corporation.  The Company provides oil and gas well monitoring
services to energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          John A. Neuman, 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
                  Jneuman@kennedyhodges.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Lambert" Suit in California Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Lambert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-00156-TLN-CKD (E.D.
Cal., January 21, 2014) arises from the 2013 data breach at Target
stores.

Target has statutory, contractual, and common law duties to
adequately protect its customers' non-public and private financial
information, Ms. Lambert says.  She contends that Target breached
the duties owed to its customers by failing to safeguard
customers' non-public and private information, and by failing to
timely disclose the security breach to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

Target Corporation is represented by:

          Samuel James Boone Lunier, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-6246
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: slunier@mofo.com


TOTAL WASTE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Manual Laborer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lopez on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Total Waste Management Alliance, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00019 (S.D. Tex., January 21, 2014) is brought on
behalf of current and former manual laborers, paid on a day rate
or hourly rate basis for at least one week while employed by Total
Waste.

Mr. Lopez alleges that the Defendant knowingly and deliberately
failed to compensate him and Class Members for their overtime
hours based on the time and half formula in the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Total Waste Management Alliance, Inc. is a domestic for-profit
corporation in Texas and is a regional office of Total Waste
Management Alliance, Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, 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
                  Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph L. Wood, III, Esq.
          BOYARMILLER
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1200
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 850-7766
          Facsimile: (713) 552-1758
          E-mail: twood@boyarmiller.com


UNITED STATES: Veterans Appeal From Judgment for U.S. Army
----------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam Veterans of America, et al., appealed from an order (i)
granting the U.S. Government's motion for summary judgment, and
(ii) refusing to compel the U.S. Army to act, as the Plaintiffs
sought.

In their original complaint, the Veterans ask the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to compel the Army
to provide medical treatment to the Test Subject Veterans under
Army Regulation 70-25.  The Plaintiffs argue that these veterans
were subjected to human testing of dangerous chemical and
biological substances -- including nerve gases like sarin and VX,
psychoactive drugs like LSD and BZ, and biological agents like
tularemia -- while they were in service at various military
installations around the country.  The Plaintiffs insist that they
are entitled to medical treatment for maladies suffered as a
result of involvement in that program.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James P. Bennett, Esq.
          Eugene Illovsky, Esq.
          Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq.
          Ben Patterson, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: JBennett@mofo.com
                  EIllovsky@mofo.com
                  SSprenkel@mofo.com
                  BPatterson@mofo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark B. Stern, Esq.
          Charles W. Scarborough, Esq.
          ATTORNEYS, APPELLATE STAFF
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Civil Division, Room 7244
          950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-1927
          E-mail: Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov
                  Charles.Scarborough@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Brigham John Bowen, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-6289

               - and -

          Anthony Joseph Coppolino, Esq.
          Lily Sara Farel, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-4782

The appellate case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. CIA,
et al., Case No. 14-15108, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Vietnam Veterans of
America, et al. v. CIA, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00037-CW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.


ZICAM LLC: Falsely Represented Pre-Cold Medicine, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Melgar, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. Zicam LLC and Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., January 21, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of falsely representing that their over-the-counter
homeopathic remedy Zicam, "The Pre-Cold Medicine," prevents,
shortens, and reduces the severity of the symptoms of the common
cold.

In fact, Ms. Melgar contends, Zicam Pre-Cold Products have only
highly diluted concentrations of the Products' so-called "active
ingredients" and are nothing more than placebos.

Zicam LLC is an Arizona Limited Liability Corporation with its
principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.  Zicam LLC is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Matrixx.  Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.
is a privately held Delaware corporation headquartered in
Bridgewater, New Jersey.  The Defendants manufactures, mass
markets, and distributes homeopathic formulas, including the Pre-
Cold Medicine, under the Zicam brand name.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Julia A. Luster, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com
                  jluster@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sally F. White, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont St., 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 591-7637
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
          E-mail: sally.white@dbr.com


* Canadian Securities Class Action Steady in 2013, NERA Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ten new securities class actions were filed in Canada in 2013, the
same number as in 2012, and slightly below the average of 11.6
cases per year since 2008, according to NERA Economic Consulting's
report released on Feb. 20, Trends in Canadian Securities Class
Actions: 2013 Update.

As in 2012, all of the 2013 filings were shareholder class
actions, confirming the trend away from previous years' filings of
non-shareholder securities class actions, such as those involving
Ponzi schemes and/or investment funds.  Nine of the new filings in
2013 involved claims under the secondary market civil liability
provisions of the provincial securities acts ("Bill 198" cases),
continuing the pace of new filings seen in each of the past two
years (eight in 2012 and nine in 2011).

A key development that may affect future securities class action
trends is the February 2014 decision by a special five-judge panel
of the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) convened to hear arguments in
the context of the IMAX, CIBC, and Celestica cases on the issue of
the limitation period for obtaining leave of the court to pursue
Bill 198 claims.

"The panel's decision may be seen as resolving some of the
questions regarding the application of the limitation period in
Bill 198 cases that had followed the OCA's decision in the
Timminco case," said NERA Vice President Brad Heys.  "It will be
interesting to see the impacts this decision has on the number of
new Bill 198 filings, the pace at which those cases proceed to the
leave stage, and whether it leads to at least some cases going to
trial."

Case Resolutions

The number of settlements in Canadian securities class actions
doubled in 2013 to six (from three in 2012), the largest number
since 2009.  Five of the six 2013 settlements are Bill 198 cases.
Only one case (Kinross Gold) was dismissed in 2013.

The median settlement amount was $8.6 million, with actual
settlement amounts ranging from $1.9 million (Cathay Forest
Products) to $15.25 million (SMART Technologies, the only non-Bill
198 case settled in 2013).

Active Cases

As of 31 December 2013, there were 54 Canadian securities class
actions pending, marking the seventh year in a row that the number
of pending cases has increased (there were 51 cases pending at the
end of 2012).  NERA's database now includes data for 111 Canadian
securities class actions filed since 1997.

Canadian Securities Class Actions: Key Trends

    Eight of the 10 2013 filings involved issuers with securities
listed on the TSX; six of these issuers were also cross-listed on
US exchanges.

    Nine of the 10 cases filed in 2013 were Bill 198 cases, a
trend in line with previous years.
    As in previous years, the large majority of cases (eight out
of 10) were filed in Ontario.  Two of those cases were also filed
in other provinces (the claim against BlackBerry Ltd. was also
filed in Quebec, and the claim against Cash Store Financial
Services Inc. was also filed in Quebec and Alberta).  Of the two
cases not filed in Ontario, one was filed only in Alberta
(involving Donnybrook Energy Inc.) and the other only in Quebec
(involving BioSyntech Inc.).

Nine Canadian-domiciled companies were the subject of a US
securities class action during 2013; five of these companies are
also the subject of a parallel Canadian securities class action
Although cases brought against companies in the mining or oil and
gas sectors accounted for the largest number of Canadian
securities class action filings, the sector's share of new cases
filed declined substantially to 40% in 2013, from about two-thirds
in 2012.

The median time from the end of the proposed class period to a
2013 filing was 2.1 months and the average was 10.6 months.

Class Action Trends Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 20 years.  In addition to this Canada Trends report, the
firm produces annual US and UK Trends studies.  This year-end
study was authored by NERA Economic Consulting Senior Vice
President Mark L. Berenblut, Vice President Bradley A. Heys, and
Consultant Jacob Dwhytie.

Trends in Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2013 Update may be
downloaded from: http://www.nera.com/67_8426.htm

                             About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For over half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading
law firms and corporations. We bring academic rigor, objectivity,
and real world industry experience to bear on issues arising from
competition, regulation, public policy, strategy, finance, and
litigation.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $11MM to Victim in Pneumo Abex Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a jury awarded the family of a deceased auto parts worker
diagnosed with mesothelioma $11 million in damages in the family's
wrongful death lawsuit after previously awarding the family nearly
$4 million in a personal injury lawsuit.

The wrongful death lawsuit was the second trial in a pair of
trials in the Alameda County Superior Court.  The jury deliberated
for less than two hours after the two-day trial, reaching its
verdict on Jan. 15 in Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee's courtroom.  It
awarded $6 million to decedent Gordon Bankhead's wife Emily
Bankhead and $2.5 million to each of Gordon Bankhead's adult
daughters -- Tammy Bankhead and Debbie Bankhead-Meiers.

The family filed its wrongful death lawsuit against defendant
Pneumo Abex LLC, successor of Abex Corporation, in June 2012.

According to the complaint, Gordon Bankhead worked as a parts man
from 1965 until 1999 in the service and repair of heavy duty
vehicles.  His exposure to asbestos dust is primarily attributed
to his work with vehicle brake parts.

Gordon Bankhead was involved in regularly inspecting, replacing,
grinding and blowing out dust from the asbestos-containing brakes.

Defendant Pneumo Abex manufactured brake linings Gordon Bankhead
was exposed to, which were attached to brake shoes and axles and
were sold to his employers.  He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
January 2010 and filed his asbestos personal injury complaint in
March 2010.

Gordon Bankhead died from his illness at age 68 in October 2011,
which led to the wrongful death lawsuit, intended to compensate
his family for their loss of his companionship.

Pneumo was not allowed to dispute its responsibility for Gordon
Bankhead's death during the wrongful death lawsuit, and the jury
was not informed of the details behind the defendant's liability
nor the family's previous verdicts in the personal injury
complaint.

The jury was asked to determine an appropriate number to
compensate the family for losing their loved one 17 years before
his life expectancy.

"Immediately prior to the conduct of defendants herein giving rise
to the decedents exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials and before the fatal asbestos-related disease was
diagnosed, plaintiff's decedent was an adult person in good
physical and mental condition and was a faithful and dutiful
husband and father," the complaint stated.

According to the 10-count complaint, Pneumo Abex knew of the
dangers associated with asbestos exposure but suppressed
information relating to the dangers and failed to properly warn
Gordon Bankhead.

"Each of the foregoing acts, suggestions, assertions and
forebearances to act when a duty existed to act, the said
defendants, and each of them, having such knowledge, knowing the
decedent did not have such knowledge and would breathe such
material innocently, was done falsely and fraudulently and with
full intent to induce decedent to work in a dangerous environment
and to cause decedent to remain unaware of the true facts," the
complaint says.

The Bankheads' personal injury lawsuit went to trial in October
2010, and was conducted in two phases.  The first phase of the
trial was to determine liability.  The second phase of the trial,
beginning in January 2011, was to determine punitive damages.

As part of the first phase, the jury found that the defendants
defectively designed their brakes, failed to adequately warn
consumers and customers of the dangers in working with the brakes,
were negligent and intentionally failed to inform the claimant of
preventative measures.

They presented 30 percent liability to each brake manufacturer,
including Pneumo Abex, 15 percent to each brake shoe manufacturer
and 10 percent to Gordon Bankhead's employers.

The jury awarded Gordon Bankhead $1.47 million for his past and
future economic loss and $1.5 million for his pain and suffering.
They awarded Emily Bankhead $1 million for her loss of her
husband's support and companionship.

Defendants Pneumo Abex and ArvinMeritor were the only two
defendants left by the time the second phase of the first trial
commenced.  The rest had settled.  The jury awarded $9 million in
punitive damages, finding that the defendants' actions were
malicious, fraudulent and oppressive.  Pneumo Abex appealed, but
the verdict was upheld.

The Bankheads were represented by Joseph Satterley and Justin Bosl
of Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood and former partner Leigh
Kirmsse in the first trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors in Crane Co. Suit View Victim Deposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that jurors in Madison County on Feb. 21 were able
to hear the testimony of a mesothelioma victim which had been
video recorded a few months before he passed away.

A trial is currently underway in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs'
court in a case brought by Tom King, Sr. of Tennessee.  Mr. King,
who had served in the U.S. Navy, died from mesothelioma on May 23,
2013, at age 71.  Before his death, attorneys recorded his
deposition on Feb. 27 and 28, 2013.

Brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King are now representing their
father in the lawsuit.

Crane Co., a company that allegedly supplied the Navy with
mechanical gaskets and valves, and John Crane, a designer and
manufacturer of mechanical seals, are the remaining defendants at
trial from the original list of 119 defendant companies.

Mr. King was a machinist mate for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and
again from 1965-1969, serving on the USS Forrestal, USS
Tallahatchie County and the USS Hollister.  He started as an E3
fireman on the Forrestal and worked his way up to a machinist mate
first class by the time he left the Navy permanently in 1969.

He worked primarily in the engine room on each ship, but
occasionally helped in other areas of the ship when needed.

"If you're at sea, practically everything is running and it
doesn't work right," Mr. King said.  "If it breaks, we fix it."

Mr. King testified that crew members were required to refer to a
manual every time they worked on a piece of equipment regardless
of their expertise in the department.  He added that he never saw
any warning signs or anything indicating that he needed to wear
respiratory protection in that manual.  While the manuals had the
manufacturer's name on the front, he could not verify if the
manuals were generated by the Navy or the manufacturers.

"The manufacturer's name was there on the manual, that's all I
know," he said.

When replacing worn out parts Mr. King said the manual instructed
him to use specific asbestos parts, which were already provided to
him by the Navy, he said.  He said he never deviated from what the
manuals instructed, calling the required specifications the "Navy
way."

"We had a chain of command," he said.  "Remember the Navy way?
That's what we were required to do."

Recalling his work aboard the three ships he was stationed on,
King talked about his experience working with pumps, valves and
insulation.  The packing inside the valves was used as a sealant
to prevent leaks.  He said the process of replacing valves when
there was a leak wasn't always dusty because materials were damp.

However, Mr. King added that the process was difficult.

"Sometimes it was a real bear to get the packing out," he said.

That wasn't the case with when replacing gaskets in pumps, he
said.  Pumps were generally used with hot fluids, he explained, so
he had to allow them to cool off before working on them.  By then,
the components would be dry.

"These systems are hot and when we worked with hot valves, they
were isolated," he said.  "We cleared out all the water because we
couldn't work with that."

In order to replace the gaskets, Mr. King said he had to clean the
excess asbestos off the valves with a wire brush, calling it gun
metal cleaning, in order to prevent future leaking.  The cleaning
process created a lot of dust, he said.

"Anytime you're using a wire brush, it's going to have an effect
on whatever it is you are moving," Mr. King said.

Mr. King said he knew some of the valves came from Crane Co.
because the company's name was on the casing, but agreed a
majority of the valves did not come from Crane Co.

Regarding his work with insulation, he said he occasionally
repaired insulation on equipment like turbines and boilers and was
often near insulation work while repairing gaskets.  He said he
would cut out the damaged area, put in new insulation and other
coverings and paint the repair work.

Mr. King agreed that it was fair to say there were miles and miles
of pipe insulation aboard the ships.  He said most of it was
produced by Johns Manville.

During his testimony, Mr. King cautioned the attorneys
interviewing him that his memory was tainted slightly due to his
cancer treatments and reminded them that their questions involved
events from decades ago.

"I am presently taking a heavy dose of chemotherapy," Mr. King
said.  "Sometimes it's hard pressed for me to remember what I had
for supper last night."

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-31.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Hinsdale Middle School
------------------------------------------------------
Rick Kornak, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
closure of Hinsdale Middle School, in Illinois, due to mold from a
leaking pipe, was further complicated by the discovery of asbestos
in early January. The school has been closed since January 16.

While attending to areas of the school that were affected by water
damage, workers disassembled risers in the music room, where water
had come in through the ceiling. The risers were covered in vinyl
tiles, and some of the tiles were broken during the cleanup.
Integrity Environmental Services tested the site and found small
concentrations of asbestos. However, according to a District 181
letter sent to the Hinsdale community, the low percentages were
not a cause for concern, and the students, faculty, and staff of
the school were most likely not exposed to airborne asbestos.

"The rooms were cleaned three times now," said Mark Ravenesi,
president of Integrity Energy Services. "There will be a fourth,
and we feel confident there was never an issue [with asbestos] in
those rooms." Regarding the likelihood of asbestos fibers having
been released in the school, Ravenesi stated the possibility was
"extremely remote, at best."

Part of the mold eradication included "about two miles of drywall
replacement," according to project manager Edward Smith. Although
the work is ongoing, Smith was confident the Hinsdale Middle
School open house would take place, as scheduled.

As school board president Marty Turek acknowledged, asbestoshas
become a scary word. Despite having been banned in the 1970s, the
hazardous material is still frequently discovered in buildings
constructed prior to the ban. Exposure to asbestos is the primary
cause of mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer that is almost always
fatal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Probing Over Fibro in Dickson Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma MacDonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
WorkSafe ACT has ordered the owners of a building in Woolley
Street Dickson, in Canberra, Australia, to either remove or seal a
large commercial roof space after finding loose asbestos fibres
were falling from asbestos sheeting lining the roof.

The building owners, registered as Choi and Lau Enterprises and J
and S Chan, face repair bills in the hundreds of thousands with
WorkSafe also investigating whether they breached ACT legislation.
If that were the case, they could also face potential prosecution
and sizeable fines.

The formal orders, which were handed to all parties, also place
the future of two automotive businesses working from the building
under a cloud as they will remain sealed until the roof issue is
resolved.

The contents of both workshops, including tools, equipment and
cars, will also be off limits until they are forensically cleaned
of asbestos particles by a licensed asbestos cleaner -- adding to
the hefty repair bill.

Meanwhile, Lucky's Barber, one of three businesses within the
building allowed to continue operating because it is protected
from immediate risk by a false ceiling, reported that people were
so fearful of entering the building over the past fortnight that
business had fallen off dramatically.

Hairdresser Thanittha Prommahom said she was considering whether
the business would need to move.

"People see the [WorkSafe prohibition notice] signs and turn
around and walk back out," Ms Prommahom said.

Work Safety inspectors closed two workshops, CNS Transmission and
Morris Bros Automotive and Marine, on January 24 after they acted
on a report that asbestos was falling from the roof. This was
later confirmed in testing.

CNS could not be contacted and Morris Bros did not wish to
comment.

The building's co-owners are the Chan family behind the well-known
and popular Ruby Restaurant. The family said they were cooperating
fully with WorkSafe ACT and were in the process of organising
decontamination for the affected businesses, as well as their own
storeroom, which has also been sealed off.

The family said they planned to have the roof replaced.

The other co-owner, Henry Lau, could not be contacted.

Ruby Restaurant is in a separate and adjacent building fronting
onto Woolley Street and it has not been affected by loose
asbestos.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said a formal
investigation into the building owners still continued to
determine whether they had the proper Asbestos Management Plan in
place and whether they had followed it.

"Business and owners of buildings being used for commercial
purposes must have an Asbestos Management Plan, prepared by a
qualified professional, which identifies if asbestos is present in
their workplace, where it is present, and what must be done to
eliminate or manage any risks arising from that material," Mr
McCabe said.

"Asbestos is a fairly ubiquitous material in our built
environment, not only here but across Australia. When it is
properly managed it should not present a health and safety risk to
either workers or the general public. When it is not properly
managed, however, it has the potential to present an unacceptable
level of risk to health and safety.

"It is incumbent on businesses and property owners to meet their
obligations in respect of managing the risks associated with
asbestos. Failure to do so can not only put workers and the public
at risk, but could lead to severe business consequences, including
prosecution for failure to comply with their legislative
obligations."

Canberra Asbestos Removal manager Wade Rogers said the costs of
removing the roof of the building could rise above $250,000 and
that loose asbestos falling from sheeting, known as Super 6, was a
ticking time bomb across many commercial and industrial businesses
in Canberra.

"People should be thinking about managing and removing it sooner
rather than later," he said.

The costs of sealing the space was a short-term solution and could
also cost in excess of $100,000, he said.

It would mean the building could no longer be used or tenanted.
Mr McCabe also warned there were likely to be a number of other
local businesses in the ACT with similar roof sheeting, which were
deteriorating over time.

"The owners of those businesses should check that they have an
Asbestos Management Plan for their premises and that they are
responding to any action identified as necessary in that plan."

Mr Wade said there was a lot of fear surrounding the issue of
asbestos.

"It is a difficult situation, and I feel for everyone, it's not
nice for the tenant, who's business gets shut down, but someone
has got to take responsibility and that's the owner."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents, Staff Unconcerned With Andy Holt Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanner Hancock, writing for The Daily Beacon, reported that for
the students of Apartment Residence Hall, commonly known as "Andy
Holt," in the University of Tennessee, living amid asbestos and
lead paint is simply part of the college experience.

Constructed in 1973, ARH stands as a memorial to outdated and
potentially hazardous building practices. Throughout the building,
walls are laced with lead paint. In other areas allegedly beyond
student reach, the walls are lined with asbestos; a notorious
substance known to cause several serious lung conditions.

During housing registration on move-in day, residents are warned
of these documented hazards and asked to sign an acknowledgement
of these risks.

Although sophomore engineering major and ARH resident Tor Vorhees
does not perceive any immediate danger to his well-being, he
expressed no desire to live in a "decrepit" building marked by
"poor engineering practices" for an extended period.

Asbestos is a fire-resistant substance that, when made into a
fabric, can be useful for insulating purposes. However, long term
inhalation of the substance has been shown to yield a myriad of
health complications, including mesothelioma, lung cancer and
other pleural complications.

Despite the proven link between asbestos and incurable lung
diseases, no ban on the substance exists today. Rather,
regulations are designed to limit contact.  The same cannot be
said, however, for lead paint. Due to its toxicity and relation to
nerve and kidney damage, lead paint was banned in the United
States in 1978.  Before moving in, ARH residents are given formal
warnings detailing the widespread presence of lead paint within
the building. While harmless under normal circumstances, it is
toxic if ingested or inhaled. Residents have reported that while
moving in, they were -- perhaps jokingly -- advised not to lick
the walls.

"It's upsetting that you move into a dorm in 2013 and you're given
a warning on lead paint," Vorhees said, "because you'd think that
would be something that was fixed long ago."

Rather than deny the presence of these materials within the
residence hall, Dave Irvin, associate vice chancellor of
Facilities Services, sought to allay fears.

"The Apartment Residence Hall does contain asbestos, but it does
not represent any health hazard as it is non-flyable, stabilized
and not in student areas," Irvin said. "The asbestos in the
building would only need to be removed when the building is
demolished."

The worry-free sentiments expressed by Irvin are shared by ARH
resident Ryan Silva, sophomore in accounting, who said he feels no
concern over the presence of asbestos.

"I feel totally safe working here," Silva said. "I have no worries
about the building crumpling down."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Program for Western Victims Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a pilot program that provides
medical and other services to victims of asbestos exposure has
been expanded to include 18 additional counties in Montana, Idaho
and Washington.

The program offers home assistance, mileage reimbursements for
medical travel and other benefits to people with asbestos-related
diseases that have been linked to a closed W.R. Grace, Inc.
vermiculite mine in Libby.

The program had been open only to people in Lincoln and Flathead
counties when it was established under the Affordable Care Act.

U.S. Sen. Max Baucus announced that it will be expanded to include
five more counties in northwestern Montana, seven in Idaho and six
in Washington.

Baucus says it will help people who moved away from Libby get the
health care they need.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Reports $29.7MM Fourth Quarter Profit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore Sun reported that W. R. Grace & Co. announced that
it earned $29.7 million in the fourth quarter, a swing from a
$184.3 million loss in the same period a year earlier.

Both quarters included charges related to the Columbia-based
chemical maker's asbestos-related liability and bankruptcy
reorganiztion, which it emerged from on Feb. 3.

On a per share basis, Grace earned 38 cents in the October-to-
December period, compared to a loss of $2.44 a year earlier.

For the full year, Grace made $256.1 million, or $3.30 per share,
up from $40 million, or 52 cents a share for 2012. Sales slipped 3
percent to $3.06 billion in 2013, partly as a result of a decline
in surcharges for rare earth materials used in catalysts and
slightly lower sales volume.

Grace recorded about $155 million in asbestos and bankruptcy-
related expenses, driven largely by a $129 million interest rate
settlement, in 2013's fourth quarter, down from about $369 million
a year earlier.

Grace shares rose 85 cents on Feb. 5 trading to close at $96.87
each.

Grace employs about 1,100 people in Maryland between its
headquarters and a research facility in Columbia and a large plant
in Curtis Bay.

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 Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 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 Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe 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.

The Plan became effective on Feb. 3, 2014, following the approval
of the settlement of the last appeal from the order confirming
W.R. Grace's Plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sampling Soon to Start at Gogebic Taconite
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Verburg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reported that
a company that wants to dig a massive iron mine near Lake Superior
appears close to obtaining a stormwater permit that will allow it
to widen and build new roads on the mine site to allow removal of
4,000 tons of rock for testing.

Meanwhile, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources air quality
official said that the agency decided it didn't have authority to
regulate any possible asbestos-like material that may be exposed
during the bulk sampling operation.

The DNR has granted Gogebic Taconite an exemption from any
requirement for an air pollution permit, which would have required
detailed plans for controlling and monitoring dust released into
the air when crews use machinery to hammer rock, screen it, load
it into trucks and take it away, said Kristin Hart, a section
chief in the agency's air management program.

The company plans to test the rock to find out the type of
equipment needed to extract iron.

A DNR water quality regulator said that he expects the stormwater
permit to be issued soon after Gogebic Taconite clarifies a few
more details about how it will prevent construction runoff from
muddying wetlands, streams and lakes during bulk sampling.

"There aren't any deal-breakers in this," DNR wastewater
technician Bradley Johnson said after the agency released a Jan.
31 letter from the company answering questions he asked in
December about its stormwater plans.

During several weeks of road construction, the company will use
gravel and rock, along with small holding basins, hay bales and
silt fences to slow the flow of water and direct it away from
loose construction soil and away from wetlands, Johnson said.

The air permit exemption was issued because projections indicated
that sampling would generate less than 10 tons of dust in a year,
Hart said. But the company must keep materials wet to minimize the
escape of particulate matter, she said.

Asbestos-like material has been found on the mine site, but Hart
said state law allows her department to regulate hazardous
materials only if they come out of smokestacks. Federal agencies
regulate asbestos mines, but its not clear which laws apply here,
she said.

"The (state) law wasn't written with this kind of operation in
mind," Hart said. "Nobody really thinks about incidental asbestos
laying around."

Gogebic Taconite has stated it doesn't believe much of the cancer-
causing material is present, and it has refused DNR requests for
an accounting of what it finds during bulk sampling. Company
spokesman Bob Seitz didn't return phone calls.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Completed in Niagara St. Bldg.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Rising reported that D'Youville College, in New York, has
started work on the former Gateway-Longview headquarters building
at 606 Niagara Street with asbestos removal almost completed.
Selective demolition will immediately follow making way for the
construction of the college's new 85,000 square foot Art, Sciences
and Education building.  The $20 million building is scheduled to
open for classes in August 2015, according to college officials.

The new facility will house health care and computer laboratories,
"smart" classrooms, and faculty offices in the 60,000 square foot
structure. An existing 50 car parking lot located behind the
building on Prospect Avenue will be retained for student, faculty
and staff use.

D'Youville purchased the property in November 2012.

The two-acre site encompasses a major portion of the block on
Niagara Street bordered by Jersey Street and Prospect Avenue,
close to d'youville's main campus on nearby Porter Avenue.

"We will refurbish the 25,000 square foot structure that was built
in 1928 bordering Jersey Street and demolish the remainder of the
building," said Edward P. Cogan, associate vice president for
operations and construction at D'Youville.  The project will reuse
a larger portion of the historic complex than previously proposed.
A planned addition has also been redesigned.

"I'm pleased we will be saving the brick fa‡ade of the original
keystone building located in the center of the multi-sectioned
complex that had been constructed in stages throughout the first
half of the 20th century.  This original fa‡ade will be integrated
into the formal Niagara Street entrance of the new building as
part of our efforts to retain the original architectural character
of the building as well as complementing the historic structures
in the neighborhood," he said.

The new building will feature a small caf‚ area in the atrium of
the structure accessible from the parking lot.

The site has a long local history dating back to the late 1800s
when it was the Letchworth family mansion.  It was purchased in
1917 by the Protestant Home for Unprotected Children using
donations from supporters.  The building, constructed in stages
from 1890 to 1940, was used as a day center beginning in 1971, and
renamed Longview Niagara in 1975.

The college currently owns a nearby building at 631 Niagara St.
that houses alumni, advancement, human resources and publication
offices.

Uniland Development has been retained by D'Youville to provide a
'design-build' process for the planning and construction of the
building.  The team for the project includes Stieglitz Snyder
Architecture of Buffalo and M/E Engineering, headquartered in
Rochester with offices in Buffalo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHA Forecasts Fibro as Top Legislative Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Smith, writing for EHS Today, reported that with a slow-
moving federal OSHA agenda and a "broken" rule-making process,
industrial hygienists say regulatory priorities at the state level
often are a predictor of what's important to the profession.

AIHA believes four issues will be important to the profession at
the state level:

   * Safe patient handling
   * Mold abatement and licensing
   * Hazardous substances
   * Title protection and legal recognition of the profession

In 2013, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
government affairs department devoted 30 percent of its time to
state government relations, monitoring legislation and taking
action on bills of interest to occupational and environmental
health and safety professionals. According to the association,
mold abatement and safe patient handling top the list of
regulatory priorities at the state level.

"With the federal government tied up in other matters -- the
budget and debt ceiling, for example -- and a broken rulemaking
process, it takes months, if not years, for legislation and
regulations to be enacted at the federal level," said Aaron K.
Trippler, AIHA's chief liaison with Congress and federal agencies.
"That's why it's important to devote resources to monitor state
legislation and engage in rulemaking efforts of interest to the
OEHS profession at the state level. And nowadays, it appears that
legislation passed at the state level eventually comes up at the
federal level."

The most notable issues likely to be found on states' legislative
and regulatory agendas in the coming months include:

Safe patient handling: Currently, approximately 12 states have
enacted some form of legislation or regulation addressing safe
patient handling. The issue also has seen movement on the federal
level with OSHA recent launch of new educational web resources to
help hospitals prevent worker injuries, enhance safe patient
handling programs and implement health and safety management
systems.

Mold abatement and licensing: The states have continued to examine
the issue of mold abatement to determine whether it should be
regulated and whether those involved in this work should be
licensed. However, as some states are attempting to set exposure
limits, others are trying to set standards or legislation to abate
and remediate. One of the major problems in enacting this type of
legislation is deciding who is qualified for licensing and who is
not.

Hazardous substances: More states have begun discussing how to
deal with hazardous materials -- addressing everything from
asbestos to all kinds of chemicals. This may be due in part to the
fact that the federal government continues to face the
consequences of chemical hazards, such as those that caused the
devastating fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, in 2013.

Title protection and legal recognition of the profession: AIHA has
been successful in enacting this title protection legislation in
more than 20 states. To date, there are more than 350 titles in
occupational safety and health, yet fewer than 30 or so are
granted by accredited bodies such as the American Board of
Industrial Hygiene (ABIH). Policymakers are at a loss as to which
professionals to recognize and how to determine their
qualifications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Pays $63MM to Clean Up Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that W.R. Grace & Co. paid the government more than $63 million
for the costs of cleaning up 39 sites in 21 states, the Justice
Department said, two days after the company emerged from Chapter
11 bankruptcy.

The specialty chemical company agreed to the payment as part of
its bankruptcy reorganization plan, put into place after the firm
and 61 affiliates filed for bankruptcy in April 2001. Two years
later, the Environmental Protection Agency sued W.R. Grace,
seeking reimbursement for the costs of cleaning up asbestos and
other pollution caused by the company.

About $54 million of the $63 million went to the EPA and $9
million to other federal agencies, according to a press release
issued by the Justice Department.

"Cleaning up toxic pollution in communities is the responsibility
of the company that created it, not the American taxpayer," said
Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

In 2008, W.R. Grace paid the EPA $250 million to settle claims
that it contaminated the small town of Libby, Mont., with
asbestos.

The Justice Department said W.R. Grace's $54 million payment to
the EPA will reimburse the agency for cleanup costs associated
with these Superfund sites: Acton Plant in Acton, Mass.; Amber Oil
in Milwaukee; Aqua Tech in Greer, S.C.; Big Tex Site in San
Antonio, Texas; Blackburn and Union Privileges in Walpole, Mass.;
Cambridge Plant in Cambridge, Mass.; Casmalia Resources in Santa
Barbara, Calif.; Central Chemical in Hagerstown, Md.;
Galaxy/Spectron in Elkton, Md.; Green River in Maceo, Ky.;
Harrington Tools in Glendale, Calif.; Intermountain Insulation in
Salt Lake City; IWI Site in Summit, Ill.; Li Tungsten in Glen
Cove, N.Y.; Malone Services Co. in Texas County, Texas;
Massachusetts Military Reservation in Barnstable County, Mass.; N-
Forcer Site in Dearborn, Mich.; Operating Industries Inc. in
Monterey Park, Calif.; R & H Oil/Tropicana in San Antonio; RAMP
Industries in Denver; Reclamation Oil in Detroit; Robinson
Insulation in Minot, N.D.; Solvents Recovery Service of NE in
Southington, Conn.; Vermiculite Exfoliation Site in Nashville;
Vermiculite Expansion Site in High Point, N.C.; Vermiculite
Intermountain in Salt Lake City; Vermiculite Northwest in Spokane,
Wash.; Watson Johnson LF in Richland Township, Pa.; Wells G & H
(Source & Central Areas) in Woburn, Mass.; Western Minerals
Processing in Denver; Western Minerals Products in Minneapolis;
W.R. Grace in Weedsport, N.Y.; Zonolite in Wilder, Ky.; Prince
George's Co., Md.; Hamilton Township, N.J.; Ellwood City, Pa.; and
New Castle, Pa.; Zonolite/W.R. Grace in Easthampton, Mass.; and
Zonolite Road in Atlanta.

                        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 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 Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as counsel; Phillips Goldman & Spence,
P.A., as Delaware co-counsel; and Lincoln Partners Advisors LLC as
financial adviser.  Mr. Frankel was a partner at Orrick Herrington
& Sutcliffe LLP, until January 2014, when he resigned from Orrick
to became a new partner in his new law firm, Frankel Wyron LLP.

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.

The Plan became effective on Feb. 3, 2014, following the approval
of the settlement of the last appeal from the order confirming
W.R. Grace's Plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Buildings at Karabar High
-------------------------------------------------------
The Queanbeyan Age reported that the Department of Education has
assured the community in Karabar High School, New South Wales,
Australia, that asbestos contamination in some school buildings
has posed only a "minimal risk" to staff and students.

Acting principal Jackie Southwell didn't return calls to The
Queanbeyan Age on the issue this week, however a Department of
Education spokesperson confirmed the library and administration
demountables have been closed while asbestos decontamination work
is carried out. Students have returned from summer holidays.

"Based on publicly available advice provided by NSW Health and
WorkCover, a single low intensity exposure such as this would be
of minimal risk, however those with concerns should discuss these
with their medical practitioner," the spokesperson said.

"Asbestos fibres are considered safe when they are in materials
that are bonded and not in a friable condition. All known asbestos
containing material at Karabar High School is of the bonded type."

The Department initially closed an additional five school
buildings due to the possibility of cross-contamination from the
affected buildings, however testing conducted by NSW WorkCover
last week cleared them of contamination and they have since
reopened for school use.

WorkCover first investigated reports of cracks in a ceiling
containing asbestos in a demountable building at the school in
December.

"The school has had repairs and asbestos testing undertaken and an
occupational hygienist has issued a clearance certificate,
certifying the building as safe," a WorkCover spokesperson said
this week.

Decontamination work is currently underway in the affected
demountables, and the Department of Education spokesperson said
they should reopen this month.

"The staff that generally work in these buildings have been housed
in alternative accommodation within the school grounds. The
remediation of the Administration and Library demountable
buildings is expected to be completed by the end of February
2014," the spokesperson said.

"A register of staff who were in the buildings has been completed.
Staff have been offered support through the Employee Assistance
Program and encouraged to seek other avenues of support. Staff and
the small number of students who use the buildings will not re-
enter them until a clearance certificate is provided at the
completion of the works."

Meanwhile, school P&C president Dave Lavers told The Queanbeyan
Age he was satisfied that the school executive had managed the
situation safely.

"I'm very satisfied that our principal Paul Kells has handled the
situation well on the ground, and that staff and students will not
be exposed to undue risk because of asbestos," Mr Lavers said

"Asbestos is one of those things -- yes it's a problem area, but
it's nothing we have to panic about, because people handle it in a
measured and balanced way. And I'm certainly very comfortable with
the way our school executive is handling it to ensure that
students and staff are safe."

"The bigger issue it raises -- and I haven't got the full details
of the exact circumstances -- but a lot of schools have old
buildings and older style demountables, and this could become more
of a problem.

"Unfortunately, there does need to be capital expenditure to
improve the quality of resources," he said.

The local NSW Teachers' Federation Organiser was also approached
for comment on this issue but refused, citing it as an Department
of Education issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber's Fibro Case Set for Trial
---------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Florida plumber's asbestos personal injury lawsuit may soon
go to trial in the nation's epicenter for asbestos litigation.

Plaintiffs John and Grace Reidy filed their lawsuit in the Madison
County Circuit Court, claiming the venue is proper because one of
the original defendants, John Crane Inc., does business in Madison
County.

Asbestos Judge Steve Kings continued the trial preparations during
jury selection. If the case does not settle, jury selection will
continue.

The Reidys filed their lawsuit on June 4, against 40 defendants
alleging negligence, willful and wanton conduct, failure to warn,
negligent spoliation of evidence, among others.

The defendant list has been dwindled down to just a handful of
names. Crane Co., Bryant Heating & Cooling, Carrier Corporation,
Burnham LLC and Nibco, Inc. were still involved in the action on
Feb. 3.

According to the complaint, John Reidy began his career as a
plumber and boiler tender while serving in the U.S. Navy in 1951.
His work in the plumbing industry continued after his military
career, divided between various employments until 1996.

His duties throughout the years included plumbing, as well as
installing and maintaining boilers, furnaces and cement pipe.

The Reidys allege that he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos
fibers contained in certain products he worked with.  He was later
diagnosed with mesothelioma on Feb. 27.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants should have known of the
presence of asbestos and dangers involved in working with the
asbestos-containing products.

The Reidys claim John Reidy developed mesothelioma as a direct
cause of working with those toxic asbestos-containing products,
"which has disabled and disfigured him."

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants at one point held
documents and information relating to identification of asbestos-
containing products, locations where those products were sold,
identity of manufacturers and knowledge regarding the hazards of
asbestos. However, the whereabouts of those documents are now
unknown.

"It was foreseeable to a reasonable person/entity in the
respective positions of defendants that said documents and
information constituted evidence, which was material to potential
civil litigation, namely asbestos litigation," the suit states.

Nate Mudd of Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd LLC in St. Louis
represents plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't. Report Shines Light on Fibro Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Ciccatelli, writing for Inside Counsel, reported that
mesothelioma, a serious form of cancer mainly caused by inhaling
asbestos, has caught the attention of lawmakers lately.

According to a U.S. government report, companies have set aside
more than $30 billion for victims of mesothelioma since the 1980s.
In fact, asbestos lawsuits have played a role in approximately 100
companies going bankrupt. One such company is a gasket
manufacturer called Garlock. As part of its $1 billion bankruptcy
case, a judge has slashed what the manufacturer owes asbestos
victims after learning that the victim's lawyers abused the
system.

"It's laid bare the massive fraud that is routinely practiced in
mesothelioma litigation," Lester Brickman, told NPR. Brickman is a
Cardozo law school professor who has researched asbestos
litigation for over 20 years and who testified for Garlock.

In Texas, one plaintiff said his exposure to asbestos was from
Garlock after his lawyers filed a claim with another company.
Meanwhile, in California, another plaintiff's lawyers misled a
jury to make Garlock look worse. In Philadelphia, lawyers made
evidence of their client's exposure to 20 different asbestos
products disappear.

"As Hodges says in his order, we were able to demonstrate in all
-- each and every one of those 15 cases -- that there was
extensive suppression of exposure evidence," said Rick Magee, one
of Garlock's attorneys.

Garlock convinced Judge Hodges to reduce the estimate for how much
the company owes victims. The victims' lawyers argued that the
company still owes $1 billion. However, in his January decision,
Hodges wrote that that estimate is "infected with the impropriety
of some law firms and inflated by the cost of defense."

Peter Kraus, managing partner of Waters & Kraus in Dallas, said,
"There are some of those cases that involve my firm. So I know for
a fact from those cases that the judge's description of what
happened is simply not correct."

According to Kraus, Hodges took a radical approach with his
decision. "It's very, very different from the rulings and findings
by judges with more experience in this area."

But that argument doesn't work for the Institute for Legal Reform
at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "When you start building the
case, when you start seeing more and more of these instances, you
got to really question whether this is an outlier or not," said
Harold Kim, the organization's executive vice president.

Kim said the case will be a wake-up call for other judges, which
will lead to more accurate estimates of what companies really owe.
The judge currently estimates that Garlock owes $125 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deep Wood Elementary Tests Positive for Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
KVUE News reported that the Independent School District of Round
Rock, Texas, says a elementary school is testing positive for
asbestos. An inspection uncovered 2 to 3 percent asbestos in the
walls of Deep Wood Elementary.

However, an air sampling shows there are no asbestos fibers in the
air.

Deep Wood was built in 1977 and is one of 21 district facilities
undergoing asbestos testing. The district plans to have a
community meeting to answer questions but no date yet for that
meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Trust & Firms Fined for Fibro Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northumberland Gazette reported that a trust providing housing and
care for the elderly, and two firms hired to carry out
refurbishment work at its premises in Alnwick, England, have been
fined more than GBP20,000 after staff and residents were put at
risk of exposure to asbestos.

West Yorkshire firm, Express Elevators Ltd, was contracted by
Anchor Trust to replace the lift at St Paul's Court sheltered
housing, off Prudhoe Street, in November 2012.

PC Lifts, of London, was subcontracted to remove the existing lift
ahead of the new one being installed but the lift shaft contained
asbestos boards, which PC Lifts removed without putting any
measures in place to prevent the spread of asbestos fibres.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said that Anchor Trust had a
duty as the client to ensure that arrangements made for managing
the lift replacement were suitable, and ensured there was no risk
to health.  They failed in this duty as they provided Express
Elevators Ltd with conflicting information and, although an
asbestos survey was provided, it was not sufficiently accurate or
detailed enough for the work being carried out.

The HSE investigation found that Express Elevators Ltd failed in
its duty to plan and manage the work as it did not make adequate
inquiries about the presence of asbestos. The company relied on
verbal information from Anchor and although it received the
survey, no reference was made to it before work began.

PC Lifts was also found not to have made adequate inquiries and to
have worked in the lift shaft without adequate lighting. These
factors may have contributed to the company's failure in
identifying the asbestos. Asbestos boards were broken out from the
top of the lift shaft, but no measures were put in place to
prevent the spread of asbestos fibres through the building.

The combined failures of all three parties led to the unsafe
removal of the asbestos and the potential spread of asbestos
fibres, which exposed residents and others to a potential risk to
their health.

Anchor Trust, of Bedford Street, London was fined GBP10,000 and
ordered to pay GBP346.40 in costs after pleading guilty to
breaching Regulation 9(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2007.

Express Elevators Ltd, of Otley Road, Baildon, Shipley, West
Yorkshire was fined GBP8,000 with GBP827.30 costs after pleading
guilty to breaching Regulation 13(2) of the same legislation.

PC Lifts Ltd, of St John Street, London, was fined GBP4,000 with
GBP346.40 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 16
of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Natalie Wright, said:
"Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK and those involved in the construction and refurbishment
industry have a clear duty to ensure that work is managed so as to
prevent the spread of asbestos.

"This incident occurred because not one of the defendants
fulfilled their respective duties when carrying out the lift
replacement at St Paul's Court, leading to asbestos fibres being
disturbed.

"As well as the companies' employees, the residents at St Paul's
Court were also potentially put at risk.

"This incident was entirely preventable, had the companies carried
out their respective safety duties. This prosecution should act as
a reminder to all involved in such work, that whenever work is
carried out which is liable to expose employees to asbestos a
suitable survey must be done to establish whether asbestos is
present before any work begins."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Permitted Discovery of Claim Forms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Rhode Island superior court ruled that an asbestos claimant
must disclose claims forms submitted to the trusts of bankrupt
asbestos defendants, revealing all claims filed with those trusts.

Defendant Crane Co. filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the
Providence County Superior Court in August, renewing its discovery
request for claim forms submitted by plaintiff Rosie Sweredoski on
behalf of her late husband Douglas Sweredoski.

Following the motion, the superior court ordered an in camera
review of the claim forms in order to determine whether or not
they were discoverable or confidential.

Ultimately, the court found the documents were discoverable for a
limited evidentiary purpose.

In the opinion filed Jan. 30, Justice P.J. Gibney wrote that Rhode
Island promotes broad discovery among parties, granting requests
for information regarding any information relevant to the subject
matter involved in the pending action.

"Even information that is not admissible may be discoverable it if
'appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence,'" Gibney wrote.

In Crane Co.'s argument, it used Garlock Sealing Technologies'
recent bankruptcy ruling to exemplify how plaintiffs have made
different statements regarding their asbestos exposure in their
bankruptcy trust claim forms than in their trial.

During Garlock's bankruptcy trial in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
the Western District of North Carolina, Judge George Hodges
allowed Garlock to initiate full discovery into 15 selected cases
and partial discovery into hundreds more.

Garlock found that plaintiffs' lawyers withheld evidence of
asbestos exposure to products other than Garlock's gaskets and
delayed filing claims with bankruptcy trusts until after obtaining
inflated recoveries from Garlock, revealing "a startling pattern
of misrepresentation," Hodges wrote in his ruling.

Using this example, Crane Co. argues the claim forms could help
"impeach" the plaintiff's credibility in alleging Crane Co.'s
products caused Douglas Sweredoski's illnesses if the allegations
are inconsistent.

"Therefore, on reconsideration, this court grants Crane's Motion
to Compel Disclosure of Plaintiff's asbestos bankruptcy trust
submissions for the limited purpose of finding admissible
impeachment evidence," Gibney wrote.

The Sweredoskis fought the disclosure request, arguing that the
claim forms are confidential and protected by the work product
doctrine.

Gibney described the work product doctrine as containing two
categories: opinion work product and factual work product.

Factual work product "encompasses 'any material gathered in
anticipation of litigation,' and is subject only to qualified
protection." However, claim forms do not fall under this category
because the claims forms were not prepared in anticipation of
litigation but were prepared for bankruptcy trust submissions, he
wrote.

Opinion work product consists of an attorney's mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions or legal theories and is immune from
discovery.

The plaintiff argues the claim forms include opinion and mental
impressions from her attorneys, but Gibney wasn't convinced.

"On the contrary, the claim forms contain only objective facts
concerning Sweredoski's exposure to asbestos products, which
plaintiff's counsel transcribed into the forms," Gibney wrote.
"Therefore, because the claim forms at issue 'merely report
objective facts or data, untainted by counsel's mental
impressions, theories or trial strategy,' the opinion work product
doctrine does not apply to them.

Sweredoski also argued that the claim forms were created under
confidentiality agreements between her and the bankruptcy trusts,
prohibiting Crane Co. from discovery.

However, the burden of establishing that a privilege applies to
prevent a defendant from discovery rests on Sweredoski, but she
has failed to meet this burden because her forms failed to include
the operative confidentiality provisions, Gibney stated.

"Even assuming that the claim forms are subject to such
agreements, the court is unconvinced that a private
confidentiality agreement would constitute a legal privilege from
discovery," Gibney wrote.

While Gibney approved Crane Co.'s request for discovery, there are
some limitations.

The claim forms do not contain any information about Crane Co.'s
products or information that would disprove that the plaintiff was
exposed to Crane Co.'s asbestos-containing products.

"Thus, to the extent that information in the claim forms
demonstrates non-party liability, nothing in the instant decision
should be taken to alter this court's prior findings that such
information is neither relevant to nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to
plaintiff's burden of proof on the issue of causation," Gibney
stated.

The opinion also makes no ruling regarding the admissibility of
the claim forms.

"The court will, therefore, reserve judgment on the admissibility
of the claim forms for when, and if, the parties are in such an
evidentiary dispute," the opinion stated.

Gibney ordered Sweredoski to submit all claim forms and supporting
documentation submitted to bankruptcy trusts to Crane Co.

However, Sweredoski is not required to produce amounts paid by
bankruptcy trusts.

"In the event the bankruptcy trust documents contain specific
instances of offers of compromise, as opposed to factual
assertions, plaintiff may withhold such information and
documentation," Gibney wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing Being Conducted in Round Rock
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Pena, writing for Statesman.com, reported that four
school district facilities in Round Rock, Texas, have identified
asbestos material in the walls during the district's investigation
in compliance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act.

Round Rock school district has employed the Farmer Environmental
Group to conduct asbestos testing in 21 district facilities, which
occurs every three years.  The facilities that tested positive for
asbestos in the latest investigation consist of Round Rock High
School, Spicewood Elementary, Anderson Mill Elementary and
Deepwood Elementary, none of which tested positive for airborne
asbestos. According to a statement from Round Rock school district
Superintendent Steve Flores, the district will host a community
meeting to answer questions after all 21 facilities results are
received.

The other facilities included in the testing are Bluebonnet,
Brushy Creek, C.D. Fulkes, Caraway, Double File Trail, Forest
North, Canyon Vista, McNeil, Westwood, Laurel Mountain, Pond
Springs, Live Oak, Robertson, Wells Branch, Voigt, Purple Sage and
the Administration Building.

Round Rock district spokeswoman JoyLynn Occhiuzzi said district
officials will develop an abatement plan for campuses that tested
positive for asbestos and add them to the list of projects for the
district.

"Asbestos in older homes and schools is common. The important
thing is to not disturb the area that has asbestos," she said.
"For example, not pulling up tiles that have it or putting holes
in the wall and then removing the nail."

According to the district's asbestos information web page, areas
that have known asbestos-containing materials are inspected every
six months by the district environmental specialists. Custodial
staff at all campuses are given a two-hour asbestos-awareness
training.

Teachers will be instructed to ask students to leave walls
containing asbestos alone by not removing or adhering anything to
them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Violations at Project
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Nicodemus, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reported that a
demolition company has been fined up to $125,000 for mishandling
asbestos during a renovation of the Crompton and Knowles building
at 95 Grand St., Worcester, Massachusetts.

According to Attorney General Martha Coakley's office, the
contractor, McConnell Enterprises Inc., of Essex and Braintree,
"uncovered piping wrapped with asbestos insulation during
demolition in 2011 and allegedly left it hanging three stories
above the ground, putting workers and others in the area at risk
of contact with harmful fibers for an extended period of time."

McConnell -- a state-licensed asbestos removal contractor --
"finally removed the asbestos-covered pipes and other asbestos-
containing materials from the building on Grand Street, the
company failed to properly handle and store it, leaving it in
unmarked black plastic bags in a nearby building where people
regularly come and go and other businesses operate."

The complaint, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, McConnell "also
failed to follow proper notification procedures, preventing the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
from conducting appropriate oversight of the company's asbestos
removal activities."

In order to secure payment under its demolition contract with the
city of Worcester, the complaint alleged that McConnell "falsely
certified that it had complied with the applicable laws and
regulations, violating the Massachusetts False Claims Act. The
complaint also alleges various violations of the commonwealth's
air pollution prevention statute, its asbestos regulations, and
its solid waste management statute and regulations."

Under the settlement, McConnell must pay $82,500 in civil
penalties to the state, and another $42,500 in civil penalties if
it fails to conform to waste regulations over the next 18 months.

When reached at its Braintree headquarters, a McConnell employee
said the company would have no comment.

"Licensed asbestos contractors are fully aware of the removal,
handling, packaging and storage requirements that must be followed
when dealing with asbestos-containing materials and of the
requirement to provide notification to MassDEP in advance of this
work," said DEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell in a press release.
"Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following the rules is
imperative to protect workers as well as the general public and
environment. Failure to do so will result in significant penalty
exposure, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and
monitoring costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mr. Fluffy" in Ainslie Shops
----------------------------------------------
Emma MacDonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
loose asbestos insulation, of the kind used by the now infamous
"Mr Fluffy", has been confirmed in the roof of the shops in
Ainslie, Canberra, Australia.

The deadly amosite asbestos was at the heart of the ACT's $100
million removal program, in which 1050 homes had their roof
cavities forensically cleaned during the late 1980s and early
'90s.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said the asbestos was in
the roof of one business, which he could not name for privacy
reasons, although he did say it had a management plan and public
health risks were being managed appropriately.  But an asbestos
expert questioned how the government could allow it to be left in
the building and called for urgent air testing in and around the
shops.

Just six months ago a Downer home was encased in a plastic bubble,
pulled apart and buried in an asbestos dump at a cost to taxpayers
of more than $2 million because it was found to contain loose
amosite asbestos -- considered the most deadly form of the cancer-
causing insulation.

The Downer home was one of four in the ACT missed in the original
screening process to determine which homes had "Mr Fluffy"
insulation and which have since been demolished.

The presence of the loose asbestos has come to light following
questioning of the ACT Work Safety Commission about asbestos
management in commercial buildings in the wake of the  discovery
of asbestos in a commercial building at Dickson late last month.

The roof of a commercial building housing automotive workshops and
a restaurant storeroom on Woolley Street has been ordered to
remain sealed until it is replaced or made safe after asbestos
fibres were found to be falling from ageing Super 6 asbestos-
bonded sheeting.

Mr McCabe confirmed the presence of much less stable amosite
asbestos in the neighbouring shopping centre in Ainslie when asked
whether asbestos had been detected in other commercial precincts
and how many shopping centres were adhering to Asbestos Management
Plans.

Mr McCabe could not confirm whether the Ainslie shops insulation
had been installed by "Mr Fluffy", just that it had been confirmed
after testing to be the loose amosite asbestos used for ceiling
insulation -- the same as material installed by Dirk "Mr Fluffy"
Jansen and his sons in the '70s.

Its public health risk is considerable in that this form of
asbestos is easily crumbled and reduced to powder and the
microscopic particles are easily airborne when disturbed.
Inhalation of even a minute amount of amosite asbestos can cause
mesothelioma and other cancers.

Mr McCabe said, "In terms of the Ainslie shops, asbestos ceiling
insulation is present in one premise and a management plan is in
place as required by law.  Inspections by WorkSafe have identified
that the recommendations in this plan to appropriately manage any
risks to health and safety are being followed."

He did not have legislative powers to order the asbestos be
removed unless its management plan was being breached.

He had become aware of the amosite asbestos at Ainslie because,
"WorkSafe ACT has previously identified issues regarding asbestos
at the Ainslie Shops". He was not aware of issues arising from
asbestos in any other suburban shopping centres.

Mr McCabe could not reveal the exact location of the asbestos for
privacy reasons but it is believed the insulation is in part, not
all of the roof.

Mr McCabe noted WorkSafe inspectors had already inspected all
suburban shopping centres in the inner north and found varying
levels of compliance and follow-up inspections were scheduled.

Commercial property owners were required by law to have management
plans, but the WorkSafe inspection regime over recent years had
found 35 per cent of the 26 businesses operating out of the
Ainslie shops had been non-compliant with their obligation to have
a plan.

Management plans require a licenced asbestos assessor to determine
whether asbestos is present and how it must be contained.

Mr McCabe reiterated a plan was in place for the business in
question at Ainslie and public health risks were being managed
appropriately.  But asbestos expert Dr Keith McHenry, who headed
up the ACT's five-year removal program from 1989, said the issue
had massive ramifications for government.

"Commercial properties were never screened in the original
program, presumably to limit the considerable costs involved," Dr
McHenry said.

"But if they knew about Ainslie and just left it there, what does
it say about the $100 million residential program and $2 million
just recently spent on the Downer home. Was that all a waste or
was it justified spending?"

"Why are they leaving it in some buildings but not others?"

Dr McHenry said air monitoring needed to be undertaken in and
around the Ainslie shops as a matter of urgency.

"This stuff is deadly, and you can't compare it with the asbestos
present in bonded sheeting. It is like comparing 2 per cent beer
with 100 per cent ethanol alcohol."

Dr McHenry has spent two decades calling for commercial properties
in the ACT to be screened for "Mr Fluffy" insulation, which was
commonly pumped into gabled roofs. He has also described as
"criminally negligent" the inaction by the NSW Government to clean
up the asbestos known to have been installed by Mr Fluffy in at
least 50 Queanbeyan homes that were neither screened as part of
the $100 million clean-up, nor decontaminated.

Workplace Safety Minister Simon Corbell said commercial premises
had been excluded from the loose fill asbestos removal program.

"The asbestos management plans are the vehicle for managing
asbestos in commercial premises. In addition there is no
limitation on commercial premises removing the loose fill asbestos
should they wish to do so," he said.

"The Ainslie shops' most recent asbestos survey and management
plan was completed in October 2012."

Mr Corbell said the territory had the most rigorous asbestos
legislation in Australia and businesses where asbestos was found
were required to have management plans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Insurers Sue to Pry Open Bankruptcy Trusts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reported that insurance
companies have joined the list of parties that want to pry open
the records of secretive bankruptcy trusts that plaintiff lawyers
set up to pay asbestos-related claims.

Humana, Aetna, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and hospital networks
operated by Johns Hopkins and Tufts have filed a complaint in
state court in Philadelphia demanding claims records from the H.K.
Porter Asbestos Trust. The insurers say they need the names of
plaintiffs who have recovered money from the trust so they can be
reimbursed for medical expenses they paid to cover the same
asbestos-related illnesses.

In a similar so-called subrogation action, insurers are preparing
to sue Pfizer PFE +0.31% in federal court in New York to recover
some of the $1.2 billion the pharmaceutical maker agreed to pay to
settle lawsuits linked to its Quigley unit, which filed for
bankruptcy in 2004. In that case, United, Humana and other
insurers say the secrecy of the Pfizer settlement with some
230,000 plaintiffs prevents them from demanding reimbursement for
medical costs already incurred.

Once Pfizer pays the asbestos plaintiffs, the insurers say, their
"rights to those funds will be substantially impaired." Court
dockets "contain only partial identifying information for each
claimant," making it impossible to "match these lists against
their enrollment records."

There is a bit of irony in this latest wave of demands. Defendant
manufacturers have been trying for years to lift the veil covering
bankruptcy trust records in order to show that people suing them
for asbestos exposure have made conflicting claims against other
companies, or are trying to collect money for smoking-related
diseases like lung cancer. The health insurers, on the other hand,
are taking the plaintiffs and their lawyers at their word and
demanding trust records so they can recover the money they spent
treating what the plaintiffs have said, frequently on penalty of
perjury, are injuries stemming from their exposure to asbestos.

A Humana spokesperson said the firm doesn't comment on litigation.
United Health didn't respond to my request for comment, and
lawyers at Lowey Dannenberg, the lead firm in both cases, declined
comment.

This isn't the first time health insurers have tried to assert
their right to collect money paid to people covered by their
policies. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the principal with its
2006 decision Sereboff v. Mid-Atlantic, in which a self-insured
company sued to recover some $75,000 in medical expenses it paid
for the care of an employee injured in a car accident. Under the
Employment Retirement Security Act, the court ruled, the company
could sue for a piece of the employee's $750,000 legal settlement.

In their lawsuits over asbestos claims, the insurers cite ERISA
and other federal laws that allow them to collect as much as
double damages from "primary payers" that disregard their
subrogation rights. The right stems from the insurance contract
embedded in most plans, in which employees agree to reimburse
their healthcare costs if they are also compensated through
litigation.

"Given that plaintiffs represent a substantial proportion of the
U.S. population, and that over 230,000 individuals have already
received at least a partial payment from Pfizer since 2004,
plaintiffs should have received tens of thousands of such
notices," the insurers say in the expected Pfizer suit, which was
submitted as an exhibit in the Quigley bankruptcy. "In fact, they
have received only a handful."

Asbestos companies tried a similar tack in the 1990s, suing
tobacco companies to recover the billions of dollars they paid out
for lung conditions likely caused by smoking. Judges in
Mississippi and elsewhere dismissed those claims, however.

Critics have long complained that plaintiff lawyers who drive
companies into bankruptcy with asbestos claims also control the
trusts that courts set up to pay their clients' claims. Most
trusts keep claims secret, supposedly to protect the health
records of claimants, and resist requests for information on what
plaintiffs said caused their illness. Some trusts will pay claims
based on the barest evidence of exposure to a company's products,
such as work records showing a person once was employed at a
facility identified in other records as having received asbestos-
containing materials.

"There's at least one trust that where all you have to say is you
worked at Penn State's main campus," said S. Todd Brown, an
associate professor at State University of New York Buffalo Law
School and expert on asbestos bankruptcy trusts. "It can be that
loose for claims at some trusts."

Normally plaintiffs surrender their anonymity and privacy when
they file a lawsuit, but secrecy crept into the asbestos-
litigation business in the early 2000s when a single judge was
handling almost 20 bankruptcies simultaneously, Brown said.
Insurance companies that were footing most of the bills demanded
proof that plaintiff lawyers had legal representation agreements
with their plaintiffs. But as they started turning over those
records, high-volume asbestos firms realized that could unveil
problematic details such as the fee-splitting arrangements that
are common in this business.

Many asbestos claimants enter the system through a nationwide
network of lawyers who advertise for plaintiffs and then hand them
off to specialist firms in exchange for a piece of the ultimate
fees. Ethical rules prevent fee-splitting, however, unless the
referring firm performs meaningful legal work on the case.

"The larger firms said `Wait a sec, if we produce this it is going
to be horrible for us,'" Brown told me. "This is going to be bad
for our business model."

Plaintiff lawyers took a hit recently when a bankruptcy judge
slashed the amount of money they were seeking in the Garlock
bankruptcy, citing the "impropriety of some law firms" in
submitting claims to bankruptcy trusts that conflicted with their
claims in the gasket maker's bankruptcy. The judge allowed Garlock
to conduct discovery on 15 settled cases, and discovered plaintiff
lawyers had failed to disclose evidence in all 15.

Last year the House of Representatives passed the FACT Act, which
would require asbestos bankruptcy trusts to disclose the names of
claimants. It cannot get past the Democratic Senate or the
president, however.

The Pfizer settlement included a deal with high-volume plaintiff
firms Weitz & Luxenberg and Peter Angelos to pay $800 million, or
some $20,000 per claimant before fees, to settle 40,000 claims.

In a surprising twist, one of the firms representing health
insurers is  Hagens Berman, best known for its class-action
litigation and the epic 1997 tobacco settlement that continues to
yield hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees to the
lawyers who negotiated it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean-up of Supermarket Delated by Fibro Find
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Harman, writing for Sunraysia Daily, reported that the
clean-up effort on the site of the destroyed PJ's supermarket in
Deakin Avenue, in Mildura, Victoria, has been hampered by the
discovery of asbestos.

The building, a landmark and shopping institution for decades, was
gutted by fire in the early hours of January 22.

Asbestos removal specialist John Pearce said clean-up efforts had
been slowed due to the discovery of the potentially hazardous
material.

"We established there was asbestos there by looking at the
building plans, and sent suspicious samples off to be tested," he
explained.

A number of areas returned positive results, halting all
excavation work.

"We had to isolate areas where asbestos was found, like the toilet
area and cladding on the northern wall," Mr Pearce said.

"Under WorkSafe Victoria, all loose debris has to be treated as
asbestos and removed manually.

"Debris had been disturbed by the excavators, which meant we had
to sift through a lot of smaller, loose material that had been
broken up,rather than removing larger pieces."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Judge Declines to Junk Negligence Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an asbestos plaintiff's
negligence claims against a shipbuilder can proceed, the national
Asbestos Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation judge has
ruled, since the plaintiff has presented evidence that the
defendant knew asbestos hazards were present on the ship and
failed to warn.

In the Jan. 29 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania did dismiss the plaintiff's strict
product liability claims, maintaining its position that a ship is
not a product under that law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin DNR Can't Regulate Mine Sampling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources says it lacks the authority to regulate any
potential asbestos-like material that might surface during
exploratory excavations for a new iron mine near Mellen.

The Wisconsin State Journal reported that asbestos-like material
has been found on the site but Kristin Hart, a section chief in
the DNR's air management program, said state law allows the agency
to regulate hazardous materials only if they come out of smoke
stacks. Federal agencies have oversight over asbestos mines but
it's unclear which laws might apply to the iron mine.

Gogebic Taconite is trying to secure a storm water permit from the
DNR to remove 4,000 tons of rock for sampling. DNR officials say
they'll likely grant the permit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Workplace Killed Worker From Hungerford
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LocalBerkshire.co.uk reported that a maintenance worker who spent
days crawling through asbestos-lined air ducts died from exposure
to the lethal material, an inquest heard.

Dennis Ricks, of Priory Avenue in Hungerford, in Hampshire, New
England, worked for 32 years as a machine fitter for a company in
Aldermaston, where he carried out site maintenance until he was
made redundant in 1993.

But the inquest heard that during the 71-year-old's time at the
firm, Mr Ricks came into regular contact with asbestos and was
never given a mask or warned about the dangers of inhaling the
insulation material.  He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma
in November 2011 and a post-mortem revealed the tumour covered his
right lung and partially destroyed his left, before he died of
bronchial pneumonia in October last year.

In a statement written before his death Mr Ricks said he was
constantly exposed to asbestos, crawling through it to access the
heating pipes and stripping it off boilers for regular safety
checks.  The statement read: "We used to use hammers -- we were
never given any masks or warnings about potential dangers of
working with asbestos.

"There was asbestos around the pipes and to access them we had to
knock the thick white asbestos covering off if something was
broken.

"In 1989 I was asked to pull some of it down myself. It created an
enormous amount of dust, then I had to cut through the asbestos
with an electric saw."

The post-mortem concluded that although Mr Ricks died of bronchial
pneumonia, the pensioner would not have contracted it if he had
not had malignant mesothelioma.

Recording a verdict of death by the industrial disease of
malignant mesothelioma, Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford said: "His
own statement is graphically clear to such exposure to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Discovered in Fiji Schools
-------------------------------------------------------
Siteri Sauvakacolo, writing for The Fiji Times Online, reported
that samples of asbestos discovered in the ceiling portion of the
Nasinu Secondary School boys' dormitory have been taken by the
Labour Ministry OHS officials for examination.

School principal Poe Keleivunatoka said repairs in the two closed
dormitories were in progress.

"Students from afar are still being accommodated in the remaining
dormitories while those who have relatives along the Suva-Nausori
corridor are still being accommodated there while waiting for the
remaining dormitories to reopen," he said.

"Once repairs are completed, everything will be back to normal and
the students will return to their respective dormitories."

The discovery of asbestos material has prompted the closure of the
boys' dormitory at Nasinu Secondary School late last month.

Nasinu Town Council special administrator Mosese Kama said
asbestos was detected by the council's environment health
inspectors in the ceiling portion of the dormitory in December.

"These buildings were constructed some time back in 1982 by the
then Public Works Department and according to the principal of the
school, these materials are to be removed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cottage Hotel in Seligman to Undergo Survey
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that plans for the historic Cottage
Hotel north of Route 66 in Seligman call for transforming the
building into a full-time visitor center and museum.

But before that happens, the Seligman Historical Society will do a
survey for asbestos and lead paint. A grant from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality will aid the efforts.

The $9,000 grant comes from a fund for property that suffers from
known or perceived environmental contamination.

The historical society says the hotel built in 1912 has housed
railroad workers, cowboys and expectant mothers. It is open to the
public only a few days per year.

The society says it plans to renovate the hotel to display
historic artifacts from the community before turning it into a
visitor center and museum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Funds Released for Maceo Site Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------
James Mayse, writing for Messenger-Inquirer.com, reported that the
company that owned a Maceo industrial site that was capped to
contain asbestos and other pollutants in the 1990s has released
the funds to pay for the containment operation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced W.R. Grace &
Co., a Maryland-based chemical company, has turned over $63
million to the federal government to pay for the clean up of 39
industrial sites in 21 states. Those sites include the 14-acre
former Green River Disposal Inc. site on Kelly Cemetery Road in
Maceo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Towneley Hall Reopens After Fibro Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Lancashire Telegraph reported that Towneley Hall, in Lancashire,
England, re-opened after a six-week closure for an overhaul.

The historic hall has been closed since the start of 2014 for the
installation of a new Natural History gallery and display, and to
create a new exhibition gallery.

While the hall was closed, asbestos was also removed from non-
public areas of the hall which had been identified in a survey of
the building.

Mick Cartledge, director of community services at Burnley Council,
said: "A routine management survey at Towneley, ahead of the new
developments on the Natural History Gallery, identified some
residue from previous asbestos removals.

"This is in the non-public areas of the hall, namely the cellars
and boiler room. This was removed in the form of an environmental
clean."

To celebrate the re-opening, a new exhibition is launching this
weekend.

Chris Fittock was born in London but has lived in Burnley for more
than 20 years. His exhibition 'The Izzard in Me', explores gender
identity and ideas of femininity and masculinity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovered at Old Broadmeadows Courthouse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Savino, writing for Hume Leader, reported that an asbestos
find at the old Broadmeadows courthouse, in Victoria, Australia,
has led to fresh calls to can its demolition.

The Freda St building will be knocked down to make way for parking
at the new Broadmeadows Community Hub.

The Broadmeadows Progress Association has been lobbying for the
building to remain as a community space.

Member Sonja Rutherford said she feared for the community's safety
after Hume Council confirmed asbestos had been found in the
building.

The old courthouse is believed to have been built in the early to
mid-1950s.

"It was built in a period of time where any new additions or the
originals would most likely have asbestos insulation," Ms
Rutherford said.

"We'd like to be reassured by documented evidence that the
asbestos question has been investigated."

Disposal of asbestos is controlled by the EPA, which recommends
consulting a professional removalist licenced by WorkSafe
Victoria.

Hume Council's city infrastructure director Steve Crawley said
Whelan the Wrecker was contracted to demolish the courthouse, with
early inspections showing some sections contained asbestos.

"The removal of the asbestos was taken into account when preparing
the specifications and timeline for the demolition," Mr Crawley
said.

Removal work would be performed in accordance with the
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 and Asbestos
Removal Code of Practice, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Fibro Removers Not Insured for Accidents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Micallef, writing for Times of Malta, reported that companies
offering asbestos-clearing services in Malta do not need to have
public health risk insurance and though government tenders for its
disposal normally demand this sort of cover, the requirement was
recently dropped.

An exercise carried out by The Sunday Times of Malta shows that a
majority of Malta's asbestos-handling companies are not insured
for the accidental exposure of third parties to asbestos fibres,
which, when airborne, can be inhaled and potentially cause cancer.
The companies were asked for a quotation from a journalist posing
as a prospective client, who also inquired whether they had
insurance cover.

Only two companies out of the five that advertise such services
claim to have cover and the owner of one said his company does not
actually do the cleaning itself but leaves it to an unnamed
"foreign company". It is this company that has the insurance
cover, not his.

Moreover, industry sources said there are many more small outfits
which do not advertise the service but take clearing jobs without
having any particular expertise, let alone cover.

One contractor even claimed such insurance "probably does not
exist", as he argued it was not necessary.

The "miracle mineral", as it was sometimes called in the industry,
was used widely for insulation and fireproofing until the late
1970s, before the full extent of the health hazards it poses was
accepted.

The toxic substance is hazardous when airborne since it is made of
tiny fibres that are easily inhaled.  It is particularly dangerous
when being transported, unless covered in plastic and disposed of
carefully. As a result, the material became heavily regulated but
while Malta too follows EU prescribed directives on the subject,
there is no licensing regime, which means that in theory any
company could start doing this work.

Moreover, there is no requirement for insurance covering for
public exposure in spite of the inherent risk in the business,
which has been plagued by lawsuits from individuals who would have
contracted lung cancer from asbestos exposure.

A spokesman for Mepa said the authority is responsible for
overseeing the transportation, storage and export of the material
but the actual regulation of asbestos cleaning companies falls
under the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA).

However, the OHSA pointed out it is mostly responsible for the
"health and safety of workers engaged in the handling of asbestos-
containing material".

The authority's environmental health CEO Mark Gauci said there are
other regulations that safeguard public health and the
environment. However, there was no response when the health
authorities were asked to point out which body is responsible for
public and environmental health risks. The authority does oversee
the industry in the sense that it requires that asbestos
contractors submit a method statement every time they plan to
carry out a job involving the material.

However, the regime is far more stringent in places like the UK,
for instance, where companies in this business require a licence
that is only granted after they meet certain industry standards
imposed by the British Health and Safety Commission.

Moreover, a precondition of the licence is the requirement of a
public health and environmental insurance cover.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that the government issues
several large-scale contracts for asbestos removals in old
factories, mostly belonging to the Malta Industrial Parks (MIP).

Over the past years, many factories have been cleared out of tons
of asbestos, and there are many more on stream, some of them
sitting right next to residential areas.

Public tenders normally require third party exposure insurance.
However, the requirement has not been consistent.

In a recent tender, the clause requiring insurance cover was
mysteriously dropped. Questions sent to the authorities asking for
explanations remained unanswered at the time of writing.

A spokesman for the Economy Ministry said MIP was currently
investigating a tender issued for the removal of asbestos at a
factory in Marsa last year on suspicion that the winning bidder
did not actually have insurance cover, despite it having been a
specific requirement of the tender.

Diseases caused by asbestos usually take between 10 to 40 years to
develop.

Malta had its fair share of asbestos victims. In 2012, the heirs
of several former dockyard workers filed individual and class
action lawsuits in the US, seeking their right to compensation in
damages for occupational exposures to asbestos products while
working -- among other places -- on US warships.

Some of them also took their battle for compensation to the
European Court of Human rights in the same year, over the
government's refusal to payout on behalf of the now defunct Malta
Shipyards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Baucus Took "Vow" to Help Libby Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dennison, writing for The Missoulian, reported that for
residents of Libby ravaged by asbestos-related diseases, U.S. Sen.
Max Baucus has delivered on health care -- including special
government coverage like nowhere else in America.

"Just about every step of the way, Max has been there," says Gayla
Benefield, a Libby resident and activist who helped expose the
asbestos pollution in Libby. "All we've had to do is ask, and he's
been right on it."

Libby's infamous asbestos problem stems from a now-defunct
vermiculite mine last operated by W.R. Grace and Co. on the edge
of town. Generations of workers at the mine breathed asbestos
fibers from the vermiculite and brought the deadly fibers home on
their clothes, infecting their families with lung disease as well.

Grace also left piles of low-grade vermiculite near the mine, for
anyone to take. It was used in gardens, baseball fields, track
fields and for home insulation throughout Libby, exposing hundreds
more to its asbestos fibers.

More than 3,000 people from Libby have been diagnosed with
asbestos-related lung disease, some 400 have died and the numbers
continue to grow.

Libby residents diagnosed with the disease, however, have a unique
benefit, thanks to Baucus: They are covered by Medicare,
regardless of their age.

Medicare, usually reserved for Americans 65 or older, provides
free hospital care, insurance for non-hospital care for about $105
a month and prescription drug coverage.

Tanis Hernandez, administrative director of the Center for
Asbestos Related Disease in Libby, says ever-younger residents are
coming to the clinic to get screened for asbestos lung diseases.
If they screen positive, they get Medicare coverage.

Baucus, D-Mont., chief architect of the 2010 Affordable Care Act
-- "Obamacare" -- wrote the Medicare provision into the bill, for
citizens affected by contamination at Superfund sites declared a
"public health emergency." Libby is the only such site in the
country.

Baucus also has announced expansion to several counties near Libby
of a pilot program covering some additional services not usually
covered by Medicare, like home health assistance.  This special
Medicare coverage isn't the only help Baucus has helped arrange
for Libby's asbestos victims.  He helped get seed money and grants
for the clinic, which provides free screening for Libby residents,
secured funding to help pay for its expansion, pushed for the 2009
public health emergency declaration, and supported a $10 million
grant in 2011 to cover future screening costs.

"We wouldn't be where we are today without his support," Hernandez
says. "He's always been there to hear the latest concerns and
struggles, and to try to find a solution."

Baucus visited Libby last summer, and brought along the head of
the U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services with him. He
said Libby had been a top priority for him, since meeting victims
and activists 14 years earlier.

"I made a vow to myself," he said, "(that) I would do whatever it
took to help the people of Libby."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Fibro Victim Hunts for Clues
---------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham Mail reported that the grieving daughter of a man who
died after suspected asbestos exposure is desperate to trace his
former colleagues in Birmingham, England, so she can come to terms
with his death.

Henry Wesley Irvine, from Belfast, worked in the Midlands during
the 1950s as a forklift truck driver.

His youngest daughter, Christine Craig, 52, is convinced he worked
for Dunlop Rubber at the famous firm's Fort Dunlop factory and
that he came into contact with the deadly dust while working at
the plant.

A spokeswoman for Goodyear, who took over Dunlop Rubber, said they
were investigating Christine's claims.  Henry was diagnosed with
asbestosis aged 79. He died last year at the age of 82.

Now Christine is desperate to trace people who might remember
working with him in the late 1950s so that she can understand his
death.

Christine has launched her hunt for clues after learning that her
late father ran through his employment history with his lawyers
several years ago.

During that meeting he told them that he used to transport
asbestos on forklift trucks when he worked at the Castle Bromwich
factory -- now home of the Sunday Mercury -- between 1951 and
1955.

Christine, who lives in Belfast, said: "All the family knew that
dad worked for Dunlop Rubber. We just want to prove that he did
actually work there. At the moment there is a big gap in events,
and I just want to be able to move on.

"Dad died suddenly at my feet on the last day of a family weekend
away.

"We were just getting ready to check out of the hotel we had been
staying in when he said that he was feeling weak. The next thing I
knew, he was dead.

"Dad was always the life and soul of the party -- he loved his
whisky. We were really, really close. He was really family-
orientated man and his grandchildren absolutely idolised him.

"My father was 82 years old when he died so there might not be
many of his colleagues left, but we thought it was worth a try.

"Any information might help.

"We want to speak to people he worked with because they might be
able to tell us more about how they did their job, what the
conditions were like, if they ever got to take showers and so on."

Born on October 21, 1930, Henry was married to Margarita (nee
McCullough).  He had two daughters, Christine Craig, 52, and Wendy
Steritt, 54.

Christine said that he died after suffering a massive heart
attack. No inquest was held, but a post mortem found he had a
condition caused by pleural plaques thickening.  She added that
asbestos showed up on a CT scan that Henry underwent.

Adam Kirkpatrick, from King and Gowdy Solicitors, said: "Before he
passed away, Henry Irvine gave me a very detailed employment
history.

"If he didn't work for Dunlop Rubber, there is nowhere else in his
working life where he was likely to have come into contact with
asbestos.

"People coming forward who remember working with Mr Irvine would
really help us get to the bottom of this."

Kate MacNamara, spokeswoman for Goodyear, who took over Dunlop
Rubber, said the company could not confirm if Henry worked there.
She said: "We are aware of the matter and are investigating
further."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board to Approve Fibro Removal for W.Va. School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wind, writing for WCF Courier, reported that plans to
remove asbestos from the former Logan Middle School, in West
Virginia, will come before the board of education to consider,
among other things, asbestos abatment project following a public
hearing. Approval would allow Waterloo Schools' officials to seek
bids. The project is anticipated to cost more than $100,000.

Asbestos removal is needed before the building can be demolished.
Logan Middle School, 1515 Logan Ave., was replaced by neighboring
George Washington Carver Academy, which opened in 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Victims Face Losing Part of Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Merrick, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that
ministers have been accused of deceiving asbestos victims in
Hampshire, England, with fatal lung cancer, after dealing them a
second heavy blow.

Mesothelioma sufferers face losing up to 25 per cent of their
damages payments to their lawyers under changes brought through
Parliament.

Alan Whitehead, pictured, the Southampton Test MP, condemned the
prospect of sufferers having compensation "snatched away" in legal
costs.  The Labour MP also protested that the Government had, last
April, pledged to carry out a proper review before allowing
compensation to be stripped out for court bills.

The so-called "review" was simply a single, complicated question
wrapped up in a separate consultation -- with no proper study of
the impact of the change, he said.

Mr Whitehead said: "The Government indicated that people with
mesothelioma -- including many in my constituency -- would not
have a substantial part of their award snatched away "Now this is
exactly what will happen. It was clearly not a proper consultation
and, not surprisingly, it has come to its pre-determined
conclusion.

"People in this terrible situation deserve the peace of mind and
the certainty that was promised when the legislation was first
suggested."

Nearly 2,400 people, mostly men, die from mesothelioma every year,
usually within 18 months of diagnosis.

A 'standardised mortality ratio' (SMR) is used to identify
blackspots, where a figure of 100 would be the expected number of
deaths, given the age of the population.

The figures are far higher in Southampton (282), Eastleigh (253),
Gosport (240) and Fareham (208) -- and even in Winchester (139),
New Forest (133) and Test Valley (130).

Asbestos was used as insulation in ships, exposing workers during
fitting out and ship breaking. Carpenters, joiners, plumbers and
heating engineers are also at particular risk.

The latest row comes just weeks after the Government was accused
of caving in to the insurance industry, to limit payouts to other
victims of the deadly disease.

Around 3,000 people unable to trace the employer who exposed them
to asbestos dust will, finally, receive compensation from a œ350m
package.  But Labour MPs condemned the decision to limit those
payouts to 75 per cent of average compensation levels, under a
deal struck with insurance companies.  Furthermore, only sufferers
affected after July 2012 will be helped and there is no agreement
to fund a research centre into the causes of mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Finalizes $930MM Payment to Trusts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a New Jersey bubble wrap manufacturer paid $930 million in
cash into two asbestos trusts as part of W.R. Grace & Co's
bankruptcy settlement agreement.

In addition to the $930 million settlement, Sealed Air Corporation
agreed to pay 18 million shares of Sealed Air common stock.  The
company stated in a press release from Feb. 4 that it intended to
fund most of the asbestos trust payments using available cash
"with the remainder from our committed credit facilities."

"This is very positive news for Sealed Air, as the completion of
the settlement has been anticipated for some time and now brings
finality to a matter after more than a decade of preparation,"
said Jerome Peribere, CEO of Sealed Air. "We will no longer incur
interest on the settlement, which amounted to $48 million in 2013.
Additionally, we anticipate meaningful cash tax benefits over the
next several years."

Sealed Air's payments settle a claim resorting from its $4.3
billion purchase of Cryovac from Grace & Co. in 1998. Grace & Co.
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2001. Sealed Air's
settlement agreement was held up by Grace & Co.'s bankruptcy
litigation, which ended earlier this month.

Grace & Co. emerged from its bankruptcy on Feb. 3, one of the
longest in U.S. history, when its Joint Plan of Reorganization
became effective, establishing two independent trusts to
compensate asbestos personal injury claimants and asbestos cleanup
efforts.

Together, the two trusts are funded by more than $4 billion from a
variety of sources including cash, warrants to purchase Grace &
Co. common stock, deferred payment obligations, insurance proceeds
and payments from former affiliates, the company explained in a
statement.

Sealed Air originally agreed to pay $512 million to settle its
current and future asbestos-related, fraudulent transfer and
successor claims against the company in its bankruptcy settlement
agreement in 2001, which took place in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Sealed Air's payment grew to $930 million due to interest, which
was set at 5.5 percent per annum and was compounded annually.

According to the settlement agreement, Sealed Air and Cryovac,
Inc. received the full benefit of an injunction of the bankruptcy
code, forbidding future debtors from filing asbestos-related
claims in the future.  The injunction "shall be in form and
substance reasonably acceptable to Sealed Air Corporation and
Cryovac, Inc. and which injunction shall include, without
limitation, provisions enjoining any and all persons from taking
any and all legal or other actions . . . or making any demand
. . . for the purpose of, directly or indirectly, claiming,
collecting, recovering, or receiving any payment, recovery or any
other relief whatsoever from any of the Released Parties with
respect to any and all Asbestos-Related Claims," the settlement
agreement states.

The settlement also makes it clear that the agreement does not
constitute guilt or wrongdoing on Sealed Air's behalf. Rather, the
company simply sealed its "peace."

"Neither this agreement nor any of the transactions contemplated
hereby is, or shall be construed as, an admission of liability,
fault or wrongdoing by the released parties, who have denied and
continue to deny any liability, fault, or wrongdoing, but,
instead, is a compromise settlement of disputed claims, made in
order to avoid the further substantial expense, burden, and
inconvenience of protracted litigation and appeal that may occur
in further proceedings relating to these actions or any future
actions, but which the released parties have forever bought their
peace," the agreement states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McConnell to Pay $125,000 for Illegal Handling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Kornak, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that McConnell
Enterprises, Inc., an Essex, England-based demolition company,
will pay up to $125,000 in civil penalties for the illegal
handling of asbestos. According to the Attorney General, the
payment amount breaks down to $82,500 in penalties to the
commonwealth and an additional $42,500 in penalties if McConnell
fails to conform to waste regulations over the next 18 months.

During a demolition project in 2011, workers for the company
allegedly discovered piping wrapped with asbestos insulation.
McConnell is a state-licensed asbestos removal contractor;
however, rather than follow proper procedure, the company left the
hazardous material in an area where it could potentially be
inhaled by anyone in the vicinity.

As a state-licensed asbestos contractor, failing to follow the
laws is especially inexcusable. "Licensed asbestos contractors are
fully aware of the removal, handling, packaging and storage
requirements that must be followed when dealing with asbestos-
containing materials and of the requirement to provide
notification to MassDEP in advance of this work," said
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell. By neglecting to follow proper
notification procedure, McConnell was able to keep MassDEP from
finding out about the company's unlawful activities.

Although the laws regarding safe asbestos handling are
particularly stringent, it's important for them to be followed to
help minimize the risk of inhaling harmful asbestos fibers, which
can lead to a variety of respiratory problems, including
mesothelioma and numerous other types of cancer. "Companies
working with asbestos-containing materials must be held to the
highest standards of care as ordered under our state air laws and
regulations," said State Attorney General Martha Coakley. "Our
office takes the mishandling of asbestos very seriously because of
the health effects."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Court Issues Order in 8 Fibro Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a shipbuilder defendant can
be held liable for negligence under maritime law if it has failed
to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, the Asbestos
Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation court has ruled.

The Jan. 29 order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania was issued in eight underlying cases, all
of which involve claims asserting exposure to asbestos in a
maritime setting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sides With Union Carbide in Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Oregon jury has reached a
verdict in favor of Union Carbide, rejecting claims that exposure
to its raw Calidria asbestos over the course of six months
contributed to the plaintiff's mesothelioma.

The Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah County jury reached the
defense verdict on Dec. 18 after a two-week trial and one day of
deliberations.

Plaintiff Marc Robbins asserted the claims, contending that his
malignant mesothelioma was caused by exposure to Union Carbide's
raw Calidria asbestos fibers. Robbins says he came into contact
with the product while working at a Georgia-Pacific lab facility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oroville Branch Library Faces Temporary Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oroville MR reported that an asbestos removal and flooring
replacement project could keep the Oroville branch of the Butte
County, California Library closed from April 1 to May 30.

A resolution on the Butte County Supervisors consent agenda calls
for the asbestos effort to take no longer but 60 days, but partial
library customer service could be available by April 15.

The plan is to close down the library, at 299 Spruce St., while
books and shelving is removed, and the asbestos laden flooring is
removed and replaced.

"Once the abatement, monitoring, and testing is completed, limited
library services will be provided in the branch meeting room
during the established branch hours," says the staff report. That
is the April 15th target date.

If things don't go as hoped the county is promising all
improvements will be completed no later than May 30.

The item will show up in the supervisors' consent agenda which
includes non-controversial items that are approved in a single
vote by the board.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Ruling Follows Principles in O'Neill
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York federal judge has
awarded summary judgment to Cleaver Brooks and Crane Co. in an
asbestos case, in part reiterating that under New York law, a
manufacturer cannot be held liable for another manufacturer's
product and that the correct rationale for determining such
liability is the stream of commerce test, not the foreseeability
test.

According to the Feb. 3 transcript, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stated that she did not intend to issue a written opinion on the
ruling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Gets Jail Time for Illegal Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The MetroWest Daily News reported that a Plainville, Massachusetts
heating contractor, charged with improperly removing asbestos from
a Medway home, changed his plea to guilty in Norfolk Superior
Court and was sentenced to one year in jail with six months
suspended.

Nicholas Pasquantonio, of Wrenthan, whose company Johnny's Oil
Service is based in Plainville, pleaded guilty to improperly
removing asbestos, failing to notify the residents, and witness
intimidation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Subsidiary Paid WRG Trusts $929.7-Mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary Cryovac, Inc.,
paid an aggregate amount of $929.7 million to the WRG Asbestos PI
Trust and the WRG Asbestos PD Trust and transferred the Settlement
Shares to the WRG Asbestos PI Trust, according to Sealed Air
Corp's Form 8-K filed with with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 4, 2014.

On November 10, 2003, Sealed Air and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Cryovac, entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the
committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the
bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co., and the settlement agreement
was approved by order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware dated June 27, 2005.  The Settlement
agreement contemplates, in connection with the consummation of an
appropriate plan of reorganization for Grace (including provisions
for asbestos trusts, releases, and injunctions barring the
prosecution of asbestos-related claims against the Company and its
affiliates): (i) the payment by Cryovac, in cash, in the aggregate
amount of $512.5 million with interest thereon from December 21,
2002 until paid at a rate of 5.5% per annum (the "Cash
Consideration") and (ii) the transfer by Cryovac of 18,000,000
shares (after giving effect to certain anti-dilution adjustments)
of the Company's common stock (the "Settlement Shares"), in each
case, to certain trusts to be established for the benefit of
asbestos claimants.

On September 19, 2008, Grace and certain other co-proponents filed
a plan of reorganization that incorporated the Settlement
agreement.  The PI Settlement Plan was confirmed by orders of the
Bankruptcy Court dated January 31, 2011 and February 15, 2011 and
by orders of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware dated January 30, 2012 and June 27, 2012, and five
appeals of the Confirmation Orders were filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit
entered opinions and orders denying four of these Appeals and the
appealing parties did not pursue further appeals of the
Confirmation Orders. On February 3, 2014, the Third Circuit
dismissed the remaining Appeal filed by certain of Grace's bank
lenders, by agreement of Grace with the appealing bank lenders,
resulting in the Confirmation Orders becoming final and not
subject to appeal.

On February 3, 2014, the remaining conditions to the effectiveness
of the Pl Settlement Plan and the Settlement agreement were
satisfied or waived by the relevant parties and the PI Settlement
Plan became effective with Grace emerging from bankruptcy.
Pursuant to the Settlement agreement and the PI Settlement Plan,
on the Effective Date, Cryovac paid the Cash Consideration,
consisting of cash payments in the aggregate amount of $929.7
million, to the WRG Asbestos PI Trust and the WRG Asbestos PD
Trust and transferred the Settlement Shares to the WRG Asbestos PI
Trust, in each case reflecting adjustments made in accordance with
the Settlement agreement.

In connection with the issuance of the Settlement Shares and their
transfer to the WRG Asbestos PI Trust by Cryovac, the Company
entered into a Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February
3, 2014 (the "Registration Rights Agreement"), with the WRG
Asbestos PI Trust as initial holder of the Settlement Shares.
Under the Registration Rights Agreement, the Company will be
required to use reasonable best efforts to prepare and file with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a shelf
registration statement covering resales of the Settlement Shares
on or prior to 60 days after February 3, 2014, and to use
reasonable best efforts to cause such shelf registration statement
to be declared effective by the SEC as soon as reasonably
practicable.

                       About Sealed Air

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection business. The Company
serves a range of end markets, including food and beverage
processing, food service, retail, health care and industrial,
commercial and consumer applications. The Company's brands include
bubbles Wrap brand cushioning, Cryovac brand food packaging
solutions and Diversey brand cleaning and hygiene solutions. The
Company operates in four segments: food and beverage,
institutional and laundry and protective packaging, and other
category, which includes its medical applications and new venture
businesses. On November 14, 2012, the Company completed the sale
Diversey G.K. (Diversey Japan).

                        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 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 Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as counsel; Phillips Goldman & Spence,
P.A., as Delaware co-counsel; and Lincoln Partners Advisors LLC as
financial adviser.  Mr. Frankel was a partner at Orrick Herrington
& Sutcliffe LLP, until January 2014, when he resigned from Orrick
to became a new partner in his new law firm, Frankel Wyron LLP.

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.

The Plan became effective on Feb. 3, 2014, following the approval
of the settlement of the last appeal from the order confirming
W.R. Grace's Plan.


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

As of December 31, 2013, the Company was subject to the claims, as
well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business.

Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which the Company is a
party cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, management does not
believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the
aggregate, will have a material effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
critical equipment for the energy industry which includes the oil
refining, petrochemical, as well as cogeneration, nuclear and
alternative power markets. It design and manufacture custom-
engineered ejectors, pumps, surface condensers and vacuum systems
as well as supplies and components for inside the reactor vessel
and outside the containment vessel of nuclear power facilities.
The Company's equipment is also used in nuclear propulsion power
systems for the defense industry and can be found in other diverse
applications such as metal refining, pulp and paper processing,
water heating, refrigeration, desalination, food processing,
pharmaceutical, heating, ventilating and air conditioning. The
Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries include Graham Vacuum and
Heat transfers Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $35-Mil Potential Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates the potential liability for the
asbestos-related claims as well as claims expected to be filed in
the next ten years to be approximately $35.0 million, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 28,
2013.

The Company's subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved
legal actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the
ordinary course of business involving, among other things, product
liability, commercial, employment, workers' compensation,
intellectual property claims and environmental matters. The
Company establishes reserves in a manner that is consistent with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for
costs associated with such matters when liability is probable and
those costs are capable of being reasonably estimated. Although it
is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss or
recovery, based upon current information, management believes the
eventual outcome of these unresolved legal actions, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.

In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002,
Invensys plc ("Invensys") has provided the Company with
indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including
certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. The Company
believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Invensys is
obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the
matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to
various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the
matters are subject, together with indemnity obligations relating
to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase
price, which is an amount in excess of $900 million.

In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was named
as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at least
ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex. The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief sought by the
USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant. All previously pending property
damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company related to
the Site have been settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity
obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company in known
matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to
date.

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

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

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

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

As of December 28, 2013, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described, as well as
claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $35.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance
carriers to pay approximately $27.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years. The $35.0 million was developed based on
an actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout
for claims filed in the next 10 years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein.
Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an
estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may
continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be
substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of December 28, 2013, is
approximately $252.6 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $176.6 million of aggregate
liabilities.

As of December 28, 2013, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $35.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $252.6 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $252.6 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of
individual and class action lawsuits in various United States
courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the
alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on
the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is
designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently. The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which was paid
in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the proceedings. The Company, however,
reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby the
insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release of
future exposure related to this liability.

The Company has recorded a reserve related to this brass fittings
liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the
insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the
claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage.

In January 2010, Sloan Valve Company ("Sloan") filed a complaint
against the Company's subsidiary, Zurn Industries, for patent
infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that Zurn Industries' manual dual flush valve infringes Sloan's
patent for its "Flush Valve Handle Assembly Providing Dual Mode
Operation" and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including a
request for treble damages and attorneys' fees related to Sloan's
allegation of willful infringement. Trial for this matter is
currently scheduled for September 2014. While the Company intends
to continue vigorously defending itself in this action, it may be
subject to liability beyond the reserves that have recorded to
date.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 51,490 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., had 51,490 asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated January 27, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2014.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company was a defendant in cases
filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 51,490 pending claims as of December 31, 2013,
approximately 19,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,700 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,300 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 600
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one
of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and
instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor
of the defendants.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of
$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by
order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement
in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's
appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the
judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The
Company pursued an appeal in this matter, and on August 2, 2012
the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded
the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Company on the ground
that this claim could not be distinguished factually from the
Patrick O'Neil case decided in the Company's favor by the
California Supreme Court.

On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury
found that the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16.93 million; however, based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million,
plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a
motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's
favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009,
the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and
judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's
ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The
plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of
California, which dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the
matter is now finally determined in the Company's favor.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23,
2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of
$0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount
of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson
verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new
trial. Plaintiffs have requested a rehearing in the Superior
Court, which the defendants, including the Company, have opposed.
By order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the
panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument at a date to be
scheduled.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company has appealed.
On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000
verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs
filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion,
the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the
Company, with prejudice, and without any payment.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%), of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The
Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company has appealed.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company has appealed.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1
million. The Company appealed.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial.  The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The
Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of
its summary judgment motion.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company plans to file post-trial motions seeking to
overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the
damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York
appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and
further were subject to settlement offsets. Plaintiffs have
requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million. Post-trial
motions remain pending. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.

On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages
against both other defendants. The Company has filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or
to reduce the damages. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.

Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the years ended
December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 totaled $90.8 million, $96.1
million and $105.5 million, respectively. In contrast to the
recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the
current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and
receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months
or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter.
Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all
releases and other required documentation are received by the
Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense
costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended December
31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 totaled $62.8 million, $78.0 million and
$79.3 million, respectively.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $699-Mil Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded a $699 million liability to cover the estimated
cost of pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form
8-K dated January 27, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 28, 2014.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies referred to),
management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the
various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too
great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future
claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for
years beyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system. Management
considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability
estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate
is warranted.

Liability Estimate. With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of
December 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimate
of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or
indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending
claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company
through 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos
claims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of
this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional
liability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's
decision to take this action at such date was based on several
factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably
estimate this liability for the additional period noted. First,
the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting
approximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims,
have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate
settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and
associated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the
Company's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to
be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable.
Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend of
case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the
asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third,
there have been significant actions taken by certain state
legislatures and courts over the past several years that have
reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial,
which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered into
coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess
insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable
relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the
Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these
factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably
estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future
claims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that the
Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and
defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the
Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably
estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded
for any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made
subsequent to 2021.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
December 31, 2013, the Company's actual experience during the
updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and
dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's
liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the
Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant
appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their
respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on
this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the
estimate was warranted for the period ended December 31, 2013.
Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained
increase or decrease, the liability could change materially;
however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos
liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in
determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty
with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the
calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor
predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential
liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be
reasonably estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $699 million as of December 31, 2013. It
is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at December 31, 2013 was $88
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs.

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for
a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. To
date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such
reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place", with eleven of its
excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an
insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to
provide coverage for the Company's present and future asbestos
claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other
things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the
insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the
expiration of the insurer's obligations. Similarly, under a
variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has entered into an
agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount
of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth
a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based
on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition,
with ten of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into
policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage
obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in
aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing
settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been
made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other
agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual
releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-
place, claims handling procedures. With the agreements, the
Company has concluded settlements with all but one of its solvent
excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the
aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate. That
insurer, which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying
the shares of defense and indemnity costs the Company has
allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no
pending legal proceedings between the Company and any insurer
contesting the Company's asbestos claims under its insurance
policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors noted by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating
risk mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or
other factors were not certain, the Company's insurance
consultants compiled a model indicating how the Company's
historical insurance policies would respond to varying levels of
asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation of such
costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the estimated
liability as of December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to
be filed through 2021), the insurance consultant's model
forecasted that approximately 25% of the liability would be
reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While there are overall
limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the
Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were
not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by
the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company
in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion
of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $171 million as of December 31, 2013.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout
agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments
that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,
although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time, for the reasons cited.

Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-related
claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are
multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and
quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Company
cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with
respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on
past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. A
significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims
filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the
costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability,
as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand
appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction,
or significant change in relevant case law could also change the
estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company
is currently unable to estimate such future changes and,
accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur
additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in
excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not
believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond
2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,
the effect on the results of operations, financial position and
cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Partially Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted, in part, and denied, in
part, defendant Huntington Ingalls' motion for summary judgment in
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled JESSIE DUENAS,
Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, NO.
875, CASE NO. 12-00714, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-60040-ER (E.D. Pa.).

Judge Robreno ruled that Huntington Ingalls is entitled to summary
judgment with respect to the Plaintiff's strict product liability
claims because a Navy ship is not a "product" within the meaning
of strict product liability law.  With respect to the Plaintiff's
remaining negligence-based claims, Judge Robreno ruled that
Huntington Ingalls has not established that it is entitled to
summary judgment on any of the other bases it has asserted.  Judge
Robreno pointed out that (1) the Defendant's assertion that it
owed no duty to the Plaintiff is incorrect as a matter of law; (2)
the Defendant has failed to identify the absence of a genuine
dispute of material fact with respect to the Plaintiff's
negligence claim, because Plaintiff has identified sufficient
evidence to support a finding of negligence; and (3) the Plaintiff
has produced evidence to controvert the Defendant's proofs
regarding the availability to the Defendant of the government
contractor defense.  Accordingly, with respect to the Plaintiff's
negligence claims, summary judgment in favor of the Defendant
Huntington Ingalls is not warranted.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Jan. 29, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/BbrPRKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Leonard" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 29, 2014, granted the motions for
summary judgment filed by defendants General Dynamics Corporation
and Huntington Ingalls in the asbestos-related personal injury
action styled JOHN LEONARD AND SANDRA LEONARD, Plaintiffs, v. CBS
CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, MDL NO. 875, CASE NO. 12-00714,
NO. 2:12-60177-ER (E.D. Pa.).

Full-text copies of Judge Robreno's Decisions with respect to
General Dynamics is available at http://is.gd/8gseCRand with
respect to Huntington Ingalls is available at http://is.gd/SRZhXv
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Partially OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part the motion for summary judgment of defendant Huntington
Ingalls in the asbestos-related personal injury action styled
JERRY SALISBURY, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., ET AL.,
Defendants, MDL NO. 875, CASE NO. 12-03260, NO. 2:12-60168-ER
(E.D. Pa.).

Judge Robreno stated, "Defendant Huntington Ingalls is entitled to
summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's strict product
liability claims because a Navy ship is not a "product" within the
meaning of strict product liability law. With respect to
Plaintiff's remaining negligence-based claims, Defendant
Huntington Ingalls 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 Plaintiff's negligence claim
because Plaintiff has identified sufficient evidence to support a
negligence claim. Second, Plaintiff has produced evidence to
controvert Defendant's proofs regarding the availability to
Defendant of the government contractor defense. Finally,
Defendant's evidence does not establish that Plaintiff's claims
are barred by the statute of limitations applicable under maritime
law and, at best, establishes only that there is a genuine dispute
of material fact regarding this issue. Accordingly, with respect
to Plaintiff's negligence claims, summary judgment in favor of
Defendant Huntington Ingalls is not warranted."

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Jan. 29, 2014, Order is
available at http://is.gd/1CiWL2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Zimmerman" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
on Jan. 31, 2014, denied Rheem Manufacturing Co.'s motion for
summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled IRA ZIMMERMAN, as Administrator to the Estate of LEO
ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS., et al.
Defendants, NO. 190383/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 (N.Y. Sup.).

Rheem moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against
it on the ground that there is no evidence to show that
plaintiff's decedent Leo Zimmerman was exposed to asbestos fibers
released from a product manufactured or specified by Rheem.  The
Plaintiff's position is that Mr. Zimmerman's deposition testimony
which identifies Rheem water heaters as a source of his exposure
gives rise to a triable issue of fact.

Judge Heitler ruled that the Defendant's limited and undated
proofs do not conclusively demonstrate that its products could not
have contributed to the Plaintiff's injuries.  Accordingly, Judge
Heitler denied Rheem's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/T5j3BWfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Baruch" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Baxter Healthcare Corporation moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it
in an asbestos personal injury action captioned ESTER BARUCH and
NERYE BARUCH, Plaintiffs, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP., et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190372/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 (N.Y. Sup.).
Baxter, which is responsible for American Scientific Products,
argues that plaintiff Ester Baruch's claim that she was exposed to
asbestos-containing American Scientific laboratory gloves is
merely conjectural.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied the Defendant's motion.  Judge Heitler pointed out that the
essence of the Defendant's motion is that Ms. Baruch's testimony
is incredible as a matter of law because American Scientific never
sold asbestos-containing gloves with a tag affixed to the inside
bearing the American Scientific name.  Judge Heitler found that at
most this argument goes to the weight to be given to Ms. Baruch's
testimony at trial.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated
Jan. 24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/cjEX7Ffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in NY Litigation Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------
Appeal in IN RE: NEW YORK COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
BROWN, v. CRANE CO. -- MARIO & DIBONO PLASTERING CO. -- PORT
AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY -- TISHMAN REALTY AND
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., McCLOSKEY, v. CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. --
DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, INC. -- ESTATE OF McCLOSKEY; TERRY, v. CRANE
CO. -- ESTATE OF TERRY, MOTION NO. M-6201 (N.Y. App. Div.) is
withdrawn.  Motion is also deemed withdrawn.  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/lWfpvyfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Inmate's Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted the action
styled JOHN HOLCOMB, # K-52197, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
of CORRECTIONS, and RANDY DAVIS, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1006-
MJR (S.D. Ill.).

Judge Reagan pointed out that the only potentially detrimental
condition the Plaintiff references in the amended complaint is
"asbestos."  However, Judge Reagan found that the Plaintiff
utterly fails to include any factual allegations to indicate that
he may have actually been exposed to this hazardous material in
his housing unit -- such as whether he saw asbestos anywhere in
Building 19 at the Vienna Correctional Center.  He mentions
nothing that might contradict Defendant Randy Davis' statement
that the Plaintiff's housing unit was inspected and reviewed by
outsiders, and found to be free of "hazardous conditions."

Defendants Illinois Department of Corrections and Randy Davis are
also dismissed from the action with prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Reagan's Decision dated Feb. 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/pC7T7Ifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Protective Order Bid in "Amick" Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eldon Amick alleged that he worked as a bookkeeper for American
Gas & Electric at OPC's Muskingum River Power Plant in 1953 and
1954, where he was exposed to asbestos that deposited on his
clothing.  His wife, Barbara Amick, allegedly inhaled asbestos
fibers in the course of laundering her husband's work clothes.
Mrs. Amick eventually developed mesothelioma from her exposure to
asbestos fibers and died from that disease.

Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted in part
and denied in part defendant Ohio Power Company's motion for
protective order.  Judge Eifert concluded that OPC's knowledge
after 1954 is relevant to the claims and defenses in the case.
However, no persuasive reason has been articulated as to how OPC's
knowledge of dangers and substitutes is relevant for the period
after 1972, when OPC concedes it learned of problems with
asbestos.  Judge Eifert permitted the Plaintiff to explore the
topics outlined in paragraphs 9 and 19 of the notice of
deposition, but limited it to the years before 1973.

The case is ELDON AMICK, Individually and as Personal
Representative her of the Estate of BARBARA E. AMICK, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. OHIO POWER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
2:13-CV-06593 (S.D. W.Va.).  A full-text copy of Judge Eifert's
memorandum opinion and order dated Feb. 5, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/xxMa1Rfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona dismissed dismissed for failure to state a
claim the action styled Clarence Andrew Tull, Plaintiff, v. Joseph
M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 13-2594-PHX-DGC (BSB)(D.
Ariz.).  The complaint, filed by Clarence Andrew Tull who is
confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail, alleged, among other
things, that he was exposed to asbestos at the Durango Jail.  A
full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Feb. 5, 2014, Order is
available at http://is.gd/PuUpxlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Dismisses "Gregory" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois dismissed without prejudice the action styled
STEVEN GREGORY, No. N54503, Plaintiff, v. RANDY DAVIS, Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-CV-00031-JPG (S.D. Ill.).  The complaint, filed by
Steven Gregory, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center, alleged,
among other things, that he is being exposed to asbestos-covered
pipes.  A full-text copy of Judge Gilbert's Feb. 6, 2014,
memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/meb9JGfrom
Leagle.com.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *