CAR_Public/140307.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 47

                             Headlines


ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: Obtains Initial OK of Chesemore Suit Settlement
AUSTRALIA: Argentum Delisting Won't Impact Equine Suit, Firm Says
AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Testim
BILLABONG INT'L: Slater & Gordon Mulls Shareholder Class Action
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Third Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "McQueen" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BUCKSTONE INC: Recalls Jardine's and D.L. Jardine's Products
CANON BUSINESS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "McPherson" Suit
CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls 4 Cheese Products Due to Listeria
CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls 5 Cheese Products Due to Listeria

CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls 2 Cheese Products Due to Listeria
CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Reinstates "Lilly" State Law Claims
COTY INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action in New York
DIAMOND FOODS: Court Grants OK to $11MM Securities Suit Accord
ENVIVIO INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Action

FAMILY DOLLAR: No Certification Order Yet in Some Labor MDLs
FAMILY DOLLAR: Conn. Court Denies Certification in "Cook" Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Hearing in "Farley" Labor Suit Set for May 2014
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Hegab" Labor Suit Administratively Dismissed
FAMILY DOLLAR: Summary Judgment Motion in "Itterly" Suit Pending

FAMILY DOLLAR: No Ruling Yet on Appeal v. Removal of "Premo" Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settles "Walters" Labor Suit for Up to $2.5MM
FAMILY DOLLAR: Mulls Options in "Scott" Gender Bias Suit
FOSTER FARMS: Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Chicken Facilities
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs in Gmail Suit Seek Trillions in Damages

H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in "Drake" Suit Appeal Summary Judgment
H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in "Petroski" Suit Appeal Summary Judgment
H&R BLOCK: Files Motion to Arbitrate RAL Litigation in Illinois
H&R BLOCK: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in "Lopez III" Suit
H&R BLOCK: Allowed to Arbitrate in "Perras" Compliance Fee Suit

H&R BLOCK: IRS Form 8863 Lawsuit Consolidated in Missouri Court
H&R BLOCK: Signs MOU to Settle Suit Over RSM McGladrey
IMH FINANCIAL: Executes Terms of Securities Suit Accord
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Okays Insurance Class Action Settlement
KOSMIC SURF PRO: Recalls Extractor Due to Aspiration Risk

KOSMIC SURF-PRO: Recalls The Goo Buster Due to Aspiration Risk
LUCERNE FOODS: Recalls Various Sandwich Products Due to Salmonella
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Approves Immigrant Detainees' Class Action
MATELAS D'OR: Recalls Futon-Style Double Mattresses Over Fire Risk
MERCANTILE TRADING: Recalls Kid's Rainwear With Neck Drawstring

MT. GOX: Customer Files Class Action Following Bankruptcy Filing
NEW JERSEY: Christie Campaign Manager Fights Bridgegate Subpoena
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Rail Driver Files Wage Class Action
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

STATE FARM: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Guadiana" Suit
TARGET CORP: CIO Steps Down Amid Data Breach Probe
US BANK: Calf. High Court Reluctant to Devise New Sampling Rules

* Angelos Firm's Bid to Consolidate 10,000 Asbestos Suits Rejected
* Texas Tops List for Vehicles Listed for Sale With Open Recall


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Sacked Over OSHA Fibro Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Rep in Trial Says Products Safe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Continues to Defend PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PQ Holdings Had $941,000 Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Omega Healthcare No Recorded ARO as of Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $409.4MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,393 Unresolved Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. $280-Mil. Casualty Reserves in 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $50-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Had $6.7-Mil Net of Probable Recovery

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Expended $19MM on Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Disposed 107,400 Claims in 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Defendants Win Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Work Delays Fibro Removal at Village Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Gets Jail Time for Wrong Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids Sought to Remove Fibro From Middle School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Hit Pub in Colliers Wood Closes Down
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Company Paying $125K in Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Radiation-Induced Mesothelioma Cases Seen to Rise
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Charleston Airport

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Trust Fined for Potential Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Ct. Awards Summary Judgment to Viad, Maxim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issue Complicates Gym-Floor Replacement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Firm Cited by EPA for Fibro Handling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Questions Asked Over Dumping of Toxic Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Aids U.S. Navy Veterans Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Enforcement Center to Undergo Fibro Survey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Supreme Court Flips Decision in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recycling Companies Settle Violation Allegations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engineers Examine GGAA Due to Fibro Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Transparency Needed Between Trusts & Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Debris Left on Verge for Months
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Quake Fibro Heading South
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Rates Remain Unchanged, Firm Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Executive Loses Fibro Battle

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Former Orillia School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: County Offices Relocated During Abatement Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maryland Court of Appeals Limits Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Principal Moved During Fibro Probe at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Says Low Fibro Exposure Still Dangerous

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Files Fibro Lawsuit Against Avocet, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenant Faces Fibro Problems
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Melbourne School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quake Victim Not Told of Fibro for Three Months
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury St. Edmunds Company Fined for Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Close Santa Monica, CA Post Office
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Care Firm Fined GBP24,000 for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corpos Back Changes to Civil Procedure Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court May Take Away Right to File Class Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Community Hospital Set to Resume

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Manor Water Project Moving Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Flips Ruling in "Farrow" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Various Claims in "Hasenberg" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Allows Inmate to Refile Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Abadie" Take-Home Suit Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Verdict in Kent Cigarettes Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Granted Summary Judgment in Del. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arbitration Award in Reinsurance Suit Confirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Quirin" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in "Olds" Suit


                             *********


ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: Obtains Initial OK of Chesemore Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley granted preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement in CAROL CHESEMORE, DANIEL DONKEL, THOMAS
GIECK, MARTIN ROBBINS, and NANETTE STOFLET, on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., DAVID B.
FENKELL, PAMELA KLUTE, JAMES MASTRANGELO, STEPHEN W. PAGELOW,
JEFFREY A. SEEFELDT, TRACHTE BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OPTION PLAN, ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN,
A.H.I., INC., ALPHA INVESTMENT CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, JOHN MICHAEL
MAIER, AH TRANSITION CORPORATION, and KAREN FENKELL, Defendants,
PAMELA KLUTE, JAMES MASTRANGELO, and JEFFREY A. SEEFELDT, Cross
Claimants, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., and STEPHEN W. PAGELOW,
Cross Defendants, NO. 09-CV-413-WMC, (W.D. Wis.).

The court found that (a) the settlement figures and other
provisions falls well within a reasonable range; (b) the
settlement factors in defendants' ability to pay; (c) the
settlement take into account the complexity, expense and duration
of further litigation, including an appeal; (d) the settlement
resulted out of arm's-length negotiations; and (e) at this
advanced stage of litigation, plaintiffs were well equipped to
evaluate the merits of their case.

According to Judge Conley, while the court is satisfied that the
settlement is facially reasonable, it intends to scrutinize class
counsel's application for attorneys' fees when the time comes for
its final approval. Class counsel are put on notice that the court
may use their hourly billing records and billing rates as a factor
in determining an appropriate fee award.

Judge Conley further ruled that Plaintiffs' motion to clarify and
modify the definition of the class and subclass is reserved,
pending Stephen Pagelow's response.

Defendants AHI, Inc., AH Transition Corporation, and Alliance
Holdings, Inc.'s motion to adopt changes to the proposed class
notice was denied as moot, and defendants David and Karen
Fenkells' motion for court-ordered, mandatory settlement
conference was denied.

The Plaintiffs' motion for approval of proposed notice and
questionnaire to class members was also denied as moot.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a motion for final
approval of the class action settlement on or before June 3, 2014,
as the Court will hold a fairness hearing on the class action
settlement on June 17, 2014, at 1:00 p.m.

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/hX8KaFfrom Leagle.com.


AUSTRALIA: Argentum Delisting Won't Impact Equine Suit, Firm Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Age, reports that law firm Maurice
Blackburn is confident it can continue with its equine influenza
class action lawsuit even though the case's litigation funder has
been kicked off the Channel Islands Securities Exchange.  Argentum
Capital said its listing was cancelled on Feb. 24 because it did
not meet a stock exchange rule that at least 25 per cent of its
shares be in public hands.

All of Argentum's shares are held by Cayman Islands fund Centaur
Litigation, which was accused of being a Ponzi scheme.  Centaur
has held the shares since Argentum floated in March 2012.

Maurice Blackburn represents more than 500 horse owners,
businesses and clubs affected by an outbreak of equine influenza
that crippled the racing industry in 2007.  The law firm had
originally planned to co-fund the Federal Court case through
Claims Funding Australia, a new company set up by its principals.

But Claims Funding Australia withdrew in December after Attorney-
General George Brandis disapproved of the arrangement.

"We have encountered no problems with Argentum meeting its funding
obligations to date," Maurice Blackburn class action spokesman
Cameron Scott said.  "If that does occur, we are able to terminate
our funding agreement and, given the strength of the case, we have
no concerns regarding our ability to find another funder.  The
irony is that the federal government could have averted all this
if it hadn't agitated against our attempts to increase domestic
funding competition by having Claims Funding Australia involved in
funding this case."


AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Testim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Rieders, Esq., of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris Waters &
Waffenschmidt reports that Auxilium Pharmaceuticals faces its
first product liability lawsuit concerning its Testim low
testosterone gel, which allegedly caused the plaintiff to suffer a
stroke.  A growing number of product liability lawsuits are
currently being filed against Abbott Pharmaceuticals, the
manufacturer of the low testrosterone gel AndroGel, as well.

The Testim complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that Auxilium failed to
adequately warn about the risk of heart attacks, strokes and other
cardiovascular risks associated with Testim gel.  Claims have been
presented against Auxilium for failure to warn, negligence, breach
of warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, seeking both
compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs allege that the drug makers have withheld important
safety information while engaging in substantial direct-to-
consumer marketing that has distorted the need for testosterone
treatments.  Manufacturers of the drugs have engaged in what some
have called "disease mongering," by convincing men of the
existence of a condition known as "Low T," which is actually a
term that appears to have been developed for marketing purposes.

Testim and other testosterone replacement therapy medications were
approved by the FDA specifically to treat low testosterone levels
associated with a medical condition, such as hypogonadism, which
can cause excessively low or no testosterone production.  However,
a recent study found that 25% of men prescribed the drugs never
had their testosterone tested, and that doctors have often
prescribed the drugs in recent years for "lifestyle reasons,"
treating symptoms associated with the natural reduction of
testosterone that all men experience as they age.

In November 2013, a study published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association found that testosterone gels, patches and
injections increased the risk of heart attack, stroke and death.

In a second study, published in the medical journal PLOSOne last
month, the authors found that low testosterone may double the risk
of heart attack for younger men with heart disease and men over
the age of 65, regardless of their prior heart conditions.
Researchers estimated that for every 1,000 men over the age of 65
who take Androgel or another testosterone product, 11.52 may
suffer a heart attack injury, which compares to 5.27 per 1,000 men
who do not use testosterone replacement therapy.

On January 31, 2014, the FDA announced that an investigation was
being launched into the safety of testosterone treatments, while
looking into the new data.


BILLABONG INT'L: Slater & Gordon Mulls Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Lu Yueyang, writing for Reuters, reports that law firm
Slater & Gordon Ltd. said on March 6 it was preparing a class
action lawsuit against Australian surfwear company Billabong
International Ltd. over alleged misleading conduct in information
disclosure.

The law firm said in a statement it would seek compensation from
Billabong on behalf of its shareholders, alleging the company gave
earnings guidance for 2012 financial year that lacked reasonable
grounds.

Billabong said in a filing to the Australian Securities Exchange
that it had not been contacted by the law firm or been served any
proceedings.  Billabong forecast on August 19, 2011 that it would
achieve strong earnings growth in financial year 2012, but it
withdrew the guidance a few months later and said the earnings
would suffer a substantial fall, sending Billabong shares down
over 50 percent in the following days, Slater & Gordon said.

"Our clients allege that Billabong misrepresented the assumptions
on which the FY12 earnings growth guidance was based," said the
law firm's senior associate Odette McDonald.

Billabong said it would "vigorously defend" the claims.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Third Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that in 2008, BJ's Wholesale Club was sued for not paying its mid-
level managers overtime wages.  The workers alleged that the
company was not paying them for their work beyond 40 hours per
week even though their main job duties had nothing to do with
management, such as standing behind a counter and renewing
customers' memberships.  The case ultimately settled for more than
$9 million.  Then in 2012 the company was hit with another class
action for not paying overtime to another group of mid-level
managers.  This time there were fewer plaintiffs and the case
settled for $2.7 million.

Now, according to a Hartford employment lawyer, BJ's Wholesale
Club, which has more than 200 locations along the East Coast, is
again not adhering to wage and hour laws regarding overtime.

Richard Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- of the Hayber Law
Firm, has recently filed another class action against the company
in U.S. District Court in Connecticut.  So far he has about 30
clients.

Mr. Hayber explained that workers typically exempt from overtime
pay are executives and those in administrative positions.  Other
workers are supposed to be paid time-and-a-half for any work done
beyond 40 hours per week.  Mr. Hayber said companies can save a
lot of money by not paying overtime to workers who really should
be receiving it.  Mr. Hayber suggested that BJ's decision to not
reclassify its mid-level managers as overtime eligible, even after
paying off two previous class action settlements, is evidence that
the company may actually save money in the long run by paying off
an occasional lawsuit rather than changing overtime policies for
thousands of employees.

BJ's Wholesale is a membership-only warehouse club chain along the
East Coast.  It has stores in 15 states with 25,000 full- and
part-time employees.

Lawyers from Littler Mendelson in New Haven, Washington, D.C., and
Atlanta are defending the Massachusetts-based company in the
latest class action.  Lori Alexander, of Littler's New Haven
office, filed a brief Feb. 19 arguing that one of the named
plaintiffs cannot be a member of the class because he agreed to a
company policy that requires such claims to go through arbitration
instead.  The other named plaintiff had opted out of the company's
arbitration clause.

Ms. Alexander, who did not return calls for this article, explains
in court documents that BJ's Wholesale in late 2012 rolled out a
new company "dispute resolution process" called "Open Door
Solutions."  This program requires all employees to settle
employment-related disputes with the company through binding
arbitration.  However, employees may opt out of the process by
sending an e-mail to corporate headquarters, which then sends the
workers paperwork to fill out.  That paperwork must be returned
within 30 days.

One of the named plaintiffs, Galan Newton, did not opt out of the
dispute resolution program, so Alexander argues that he and any
other future class action participants who did not opt out should
not be part of the suit.

Mr. Hayber will argue that a clause in the language explaining the
Open Door Solutions program permits Newton and others to
participate in the class action.  He said it reads,
"Notwithstanding this section, BJ's agrees that I am not waiving
my right under section seven of the National Labor Relations Act
to file or participate in a class or collective action in court."

Mr. Hayber said mandated arbitration clauses, like the one BJ
crafted after the second major class action settlement, are
becoming a trend among companies nationwide.  He said courts, for
the most part, have upheld challenges to the agreements.

Mr. Hayber, however, thinks that such policies are one-sided.
"They do allow an opt out but they've made it hard to do," said
Mr. Hayber.  "It's confusing and people are intimidated to e-mail
corporate headquarters.  The disparity in economic power just
results in these companies effectively take away a working
person's right to sue in court."

Joshua Hawks-Ladds -- jhawks-ladds@pullcom.com -- chair of Pullman
& Comley's Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits Department,
who is not involved in this case, said disputes over overtime pay
are becoming more and more prevalent.  "

Mr. Hawks-Ladds said the answer as to whether a given employee is
exempt or not from overtime pay isn't always "black and white" and
the end result is sometimes "a coin toss."


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "McQueen" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA McQUEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE
MOTORENWERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-
06674 (SRC), (D. N.J.) is before the Court on a motion filed by
BMW to dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

District Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted the request saying the
Plaintiff cannot state a claim for consumer fraud under New Jersey
law.  Judge Chesler also said the Second Amended Complaint does
not assert that the defect in Plaintiff's BMW "7-series" sedan
manifested itself within four years or 50,000 miles of the
vehicle's first retail sale, and does not plausibly allege that
BMW's warranty limitations are unconscionable.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and implied warranty claims
will be dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/inthUb from Leagle.com.


BUCKSTONE INC: Recalls Jardine's and D.L. Jardine's Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Buckstone Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8670

Affected products:

   -- Jardine's 3 Compadres Sampler (gift basket);
   -- D.L. Jardine's Queso Loco Cheese Salsa & Dip


CANON BUSINESS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "McPherson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied a motion for
summary judgment filed by the defendant in ANYA McPHERSON,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 12-7761 (JBS/AMD), (D. N.J.).

This putative class action alleges that Canon Business violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681, et
seq., when it terminated employees or denied employment to job
applicants based on information contained in criminal background
reports without first providing the employees or applicants with
proper disclosure or an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the
information.  The Defendant filed a motion for partial summary
judgment or, in the alternative, to strike the class definition.

Judge Simandle ruled that it is premature to enter summary
judgment at this time, and, accordingly, denied without prejudice,
Defendant's motion. "The Court construes the motion as one to
limit discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), and the
Court will order limited discovery be conducted for the period
from December 21, 2007, to December 21, 2010," he said.

A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/2EUDkafrom Leagle.com.

Patrick F. Madden, Esq. -- pmadden@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson,
Esq. -- scarson@bm.net -- Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, Philadelphia PA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- David E.
Sellinger, Esq. -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP,
Florham Park, NJ, Attorneys for Defendant.


CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls 4 Cheese Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Castle Cheese Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:            Hotel/Restaurant/InstitutionalCFIA
reference number:8676

Affected products:

   -- Packed for Dutchman Dairy Shredded Pizza Mix Island Pride
      Pizza Mix - Shredded Dairy Product made with Part Skim
      Mozzarella & Edam Cheese
   -- Simply Superior Pizza Mix - Shredded Dairy Product made with
      Part Skim Mozzarella & Edam Cheese
   -- Castle Brand Shredded Mozzarella & Cheddar Flavoured Loaf
      made with Soybean Oil / Casein
   -- Castle Brand Pasta Mix - Shredded Dairy Product made with
      Provolone & Asiago Cheese


CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls 5 Cheese Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Castle Cheese Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8673

Affected products:

   -- Kitchen Essentials Pizza Mix Shredded Dairy Product;
   -- Centennial Foodservice Shredded Tex Mex;
   -- Centennial Foodservice Cheese Nacho Shredded Natural;
   -- Island Pride Cheese Nacho Shredded Natural; and
   -- Simply Superior Shredded Nacho Supreme


CASTLE CHEESE: Recalls 2 Cheese Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Castle Cheese Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8665

Affected products:

   -- Centennial Foodservice Shredded Dairy Product made with
      Mozzarella Cheese

   -- Castle Brand Mozza Italia


CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Reinstates "Lilly" State Law Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the approval of a motion to dismiss the case captioned ALETA
LILLY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-55921.

In this putative class action complaint, the plaintiff alleges
that the tasty coating placed on sunflower seed shells is intended
to be ingested-and is ingested-before the inedible shell is spat
out and the kernel eaten; that is what is expected before
expectoration. Therefore, the sodium content in a "serving" of
sunflower seeds, as stated on the package, must include the sodium
contained in the edible coating.

Taking those allegations as true for the purposes of a motion to
dismiss, the Ninth Circuit holds that the sodium content of the
edible coating added to sunflower seed shells must, under federal
law, be included in the nutritional information disclosed on a
package of sunflower seeds. Because plaintiff's state-law claims,
if successful, would impose no greater burden than those imposed
by federal law, her state law claims are not preempted, ruled the
Ninth Circuit.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's February 20, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/9BPFGz from Leagle.com.

Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- (argued)
and Danielle A. Stoumbos -- dstoumbos@finkelsteinthompson.com --
Finkelstein Thompson, LLP, San Francisco, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

For Defendant-Appellee:

   Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq. (argued)
   Lauren R. Goodman, Esq.
   Noah Priluck, Esq.
   McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
   First National Tower, Suite 3700
   1601 Dodge Street
   Omaha, NE  68102
   Telephone: (402)341-3070
   Facsimile: (402)341-0216


COTY INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP on March 1 disclosed that it has filed
a class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Coty Inc.

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/o03pNu

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons and/or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Coty pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-1/A on
May 28, 2013, and prospectus filed with the SEC on Form 424(b)(4)
on June 13, 2013, in the Company's initial public offering of over
57 million shares of common stock at a price of $17.50 per share.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because the
Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance
with the applicable SEC rules and regulations governing its
preparation.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than April 14, 2014 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.  The firm, with
offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New
Jersey, has decades of experience in prosecuting investor class
actions and actions involving violations of the Federal securities
laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Toll-Free Telephone: (800) 290-1952
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Court Grants OK to $11MM Securities Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on January 10, 2014, issued an order granting final
approval of a securities class action involving Diamond Foods,
Inc.  The order granting final approval of the settlement is
subject to appeal, according to the company's Jan. 10, 2014, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The $11.0 million settlement resolves putative securities class
action suits alleging that Diamond Foods, Inc., and certain of its
former executive officers failed to disclose material facts
regarding Diamond's financial results.  (Class Action Reporter,
October 30, 2013).

In November 2011 and December 2011, various putative shareholder
class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and
state court against Diamond and certain current and former Diamond
directors and officers.

Beginning on November 7, 2011, the first of a number of putative
securities class action suits was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Diamond and certain of its former executive officers
("defendants"). These suits allege that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding Diamond's financial results, operations and
prospects, including its accounting for payments to walnut growers
and the anticipated closing of Diamond's proposed merger of the
Pringles business from P&G. On January 24, 2012, these class
actions were consolidated by the court as In re Diamond Foods
Inc., Securities Litigation. On March 20, 2012, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff, and on June 13, 2012, the court
appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff. On July 30, 2012, an
amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action naming
Diamond, certain of its former executive officers and its former
independent auditor as defendants. The amended complaint purports
to allege claims covering the period from October 5, 2010 through
February 8, 2012, and seeks compensatory damages, interest
thereon, costs and expenses incurred in the action and other
relief. On September 28, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the
action. On November 30, 2012, the court denied Diamond's motion
allowing the matter to proceed with respect to Diamond and the
former executive officers, and dismissed claims against Diamond's
former independent auditor with leave to amend. On December 21,
2012, Diamond and the former executive officers filed answers to
the amended complaint.

On May 6, 2013, the court certified a class in the consolidated
action. Thereafter, the parties reached a proposed agreement
subject to final court approval, to settle the action.

On August 21, 2013, a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed which was granted on September 26, 2013. A
final approval hearing was scheduled for January 9, 2014.

Pursuant to the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement,
Diamond would pay a total of $11.0 million in cash and issue 4.45
million shares of common stock to a settlement fund to resolve all
claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Diamond stock between October 5, 2010 and February 8,
2012, inclusive.

According to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2013, a portion of the $11.0 million in cash would be funded
by Diamond's insurers. The total amount of director and officer
liability coverage available under Diamond's insurance policies is
$30 million. As of July 31, 2013, insurers had paid approximately
$12.9 million in insurable expenses. As of July 31, 2013, Diamond
had recorded a $15.5 million receivable, $12.1 million which will
be used for the settlement and other legal expenses and $3.4
million for the shareholder derivative
settlement. In addition, Diamond expects to receive $1.6 million
related to the shareholder derivative settlement in the first
quarter of fiscal 2014 which will be recorded as a gain. Pursuant
to the preliminary approval motion, the estimated value of the
4.45 million shares of Diamond's common stock was valued at $85.1
million based on the closing market price of Diamond's common
stock on the day before the preliminary approval motion was filed,
August 20, 2013. The value of the 4.45 million shares of common
stock at July 31, 2013 was $90.7 million. With respect to the 4.45
million shares, Diamond would have the ability to privately place,
or conduct a public offering of, the shares with the consent of
the lead plaintiff and its counsel, prior to distribution of the
settlement fund. In that event, the settlement fund would include
the proceeds of the offering in lieu of the settlement shares.

Diamond Foods, Inc. (Diamond) is a packaged food company focused
on building, acquiring and energizing brands. Diamond specializes
in processing, marketing and distributing snack products and
culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts. The Company sells its
products to global, national, regional and independent grocery,
drug and convenience store chains, as well as to mass
merchandisers, club stores and other retail channels. It has three
product lines: Snack, Culinary and Retail In-shell and Non-Retail.
It distributes the products from production facilities in Alabama,
California, Indiana, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Norwich, England, and
from leased warehouse and distribution facilities in California,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin,
Ontario, Canada and Snetterton, England. In April 2011, Diamond
announced that it entered into an agreement with the Proctor &
Gamble Company (P&G) to merge P&G's Pringles business into its
Company.


ENVIVIO INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 28 disclosed that they have
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Envivio, Inc. securities between April 25, 2012 and September 6,
2012, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and
certain of its executive officers issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose and
misrepresented certain facts.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, the Company misrepresented (i) the
Company's historical revenue growth and (ii) the revenue from the
Company's Americas segment.  The Complaint alleges that when this
adverse information became known, the Company's stock lost more
than half of its value

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 29, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: No Certification Order Yet in Some Labor MDLs
------------------------------------------------------------
There are a total of 25 named plaintiffs and/or opt-ins in the
remaining multi-district wage and hour lawsuits against Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., for which a North Carolina federal court has
not decided the class certification or summary judgment issue,
according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
30, 2013.

Beginning in January 2001, the Company has been involved in a
series of cases in which certain Store Managers have alleged that
they were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Current and former Store Managers
have filed lawsuits alleging that the Company violated the FLSA
and/or similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt"
employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The
majority of the complaints also request recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In April 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was
created in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division ("NC Federal Court") to handle cases alleging FLSA
violations against the Company. The first two of the MDL cases
were Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., filed in May 2004 and June 2006, respectively. In
these cases, the court entered orders finding that the plaintiffs
were not similarly situated and, therefore, that neither
nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was
appropriate. Since that time, the NC Federal Court has granted 46
summary judgments ruling that Family Dollar Store Managers are
properly classified as exempt from overtime.

The Company said it cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may result from these cases.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Conn. Court Denies Certification in "Cook" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in the State of Connecticut denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in Cook, et al. v.
Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut, Inc., according to Family
Dollar Stores, Inc.'s Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2013.

Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut, Inc., was
filed in Superior Court in the State of Connecticut on October 5,
2011, seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
Connecticut Store Managers for alleged violations of the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. In December 2012, briefing on class
certification was completed. On March 19, 2013, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company filed
individual summary judgment motions as to each of the three named
plaintiffs. On May 23, 2013, the Court denied the Company's
summary judgment motion as to Cook, and has not ruled on the
remaining plaintiffs. There is no trial date currently set for any
of the individual plaintiffs.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Hearing in "Farley" Labor Suit Set for May 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final pre-trial hearing in Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores
of Colorado, Inc. is currently scheduled for May 2014, according
to Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on January 7, 2012, seeking unpaid overtime compensation
for a class of current and former Colorado Store Managers. On
March 21, 2013, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification. Class notice was issued in June 2013. Class
discovery concludes in January 2014. The final pre-trial hearing
is currently scheduled for May 2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Hegab" Labor Suit Administratively Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey was administratively
dismissed without prejudice, according to the company's Jan. 9,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3,
2011. Plaintiff seeks recovery for himself and allegedly similarly
situated Store Managers under New Jersey law. Currently, this
matter is administratively dismissed without prejudice, and no
class has been certified.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Summary Judgment Motion in "Itterly" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment in Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores
of Pennsylvania, Inc. is still pending before the Court, according
to Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was
formerly pending in the N.C. Federal Court, was remanded back to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid
overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania Store
Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as
exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed
in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed summary judgment
requesting that the Court rule that Itterly was properly
classified as exempt from overtime. This motion is still pending
before the Court.


FAMILY DOLLAR: No Ruling Yet on Appeal v. Removal of "Premo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court has not made a final ruling on a motion to challenge
the removal of Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts,
Inc. to federal district court in Massachusetts, according to
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2013.

Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in
Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for
alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26,
2013. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs
claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under
Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal
district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. Plaintiffs have
challenged the removal to federal court. The Court has not made a
final ruling on this issue.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Settles "Walters" Labor Suit for Up to $2.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
The labor suit Walters et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri,
Inc. is being settled for a maximum of $2.5 million, according to
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2013.

Walters et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, Inc., alleging
violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, was originally filed
on January 26, 2010, and is pending in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri (the "Circuit Court"). On May 10, 2011,
the Circuit Court certified the class under the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law and common law. In July 2013, the parties entered a
preliminary agreement to resolve this matter on a claims-made
basis for a maximum of $2.5 million. On November 7, 2013, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The final
approval hearing was scheduled for January 24, 2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Mulls Options in "Scott" Gender Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is considering its options regarding
additional review of a Fourth Circuit ruling that denied further
en banc review of a decision declaring that Luanna Scott, et al.
v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. should not proceed as a class
action, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2013.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive money
damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief. The
case was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in
part upon the United State Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-
Mart. The plaintiffs' filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal of
the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the
Fourth Circuit agreed that the original Complaint should not
proceed as a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the
trial court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then
consider whether the case based upon the amended complaint should
proceed as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth
Circuit denied further en banc review of the decision. The Company
is considering its options regarding additional review of the
Fourth Circuit's ruling.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects that the EPLI carrier
will participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal
fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve
is appropriate due to the preliminary status of the case.


FOSTER FARMS: Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Chicken Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Pierson, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that dozens
more people have been sickened by a salmonella outbreak tied to
Foster Farms chicken that was thought to have been over, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 3.

The agency reported 51 new cases of Salmonella Heidelberg between
mid-January and late February.  Forty-four of the new cases were
found in California.

"It raises concern that this outbreak may not be over," said
Robert Tauxe, the CDC's deputy director for the division of food-
borne, waterborne and environmental diseases.

That's a reversal from Jan. 16, the last time the CDC released an
update on the outbreak.  Officials then saw new cases dwindling,
suggesting the outbreak was finished.  But with the latest cases,
a total of 481 people have now been sickened nationwide since
March, 2013.  Patients range in age from less than 1 years old to
93 years old.

The outbreak continues to vex Foster Farms, the largest poultry
producer in California, which is headquartered 25 miles southeast
of Modesto in the rural community of Livingston.

The company's trouble started last October when the U.S.
Department of Agriculture issued a health alert warning consumers
of salmonella linked to three Foster Farms processing facilities
in Central California.

Inspectors subsequently threatened to suspend operations at the
plants after discovering poor sanitary conditions that could have
contributed to the outbreak.

Even as national retail chains like Kroger Co. pulled Foster Farms
from its meat cases, the 75-year-old poultry firm never issued a
recall.  Instead, the company echoed the recommendations of
federal inspectors, which was to cook all chicken to a minimum of
165 degrees Fahrenheit.

Foster Farms also issued a public apology, overhauled some of its
safety practices and vowed to win back the trust of consumers.
But in another setback, the firm closed its flagship factory in
Livingston for 10 days in January because of a cockroach
infestation.

The Foster Farms outbreak reignited a national debate among food
safety and consumer advocates for federal laws to treat salmonella
as strictly as other food-borne illnesses like E. coli, which
triggers an automatic recall.

Salmonella is considered a common bacteria found regularly in
poultry.  Because it can be killed through cooking, government
regulators allow some levels of the contaminant.  But the bug is a
growing concern for the industry, partly because strains are
becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics.

The CDC said the strains of Salmonella Heidelberg linked to the
current outbreak have shown resistance to commonly prescribed
antibiotics.  However, those drugs aren't typically used to treat
salmonella infections, which can cause diarrhea, fever, and
abdominal cramps.


GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs in Gmail Suit Seek Trillions in Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Van Susteren, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal,
reports that plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Google
Inc. want the company to pay $100 per day to each of the email
users whose accounts were allegedly improperly scanned by the
company over a 5-year period.

The case would seek damages for anyone who sent or received a
message from Google's Gmail during that time, meaning Google would
have to pay trillions in damages based on the plaintiffs' claims,
according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said on Feb. 27 that the
plaintiffs face "a very steep hurdle" to prove that the case
should proceed as a class-action lawsuit.  The plaintiffs accuse
Google of mining emails for user data in order to use them for
profit.

Google said that if the case is allowed to proceed as class-action
it will "indiscriminately amass together virtually everyone in the
United States with a non-Gmail e-mail account, along with large
groups of the over 400 million people who use Gmail and Google
Apps," the Chronicle wrote.

Google said that ascertaining the users who were impacted would be
"a herculean task beyond the resources of the court and parties"
Only 10 to 20 percent of all cases filed as class-actions are
allowed to go forward, the report notes.


H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in "Drake" Suit Appeal Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Jeanne Drake, et al. v. Option One Mortgage
Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450 CJC) filed an appeal against a
court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on all claims, according to H&R Block, Inc.'s Dec. 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450
CJC). Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud,
intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful
withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection
with not paying severance benefits to employees when their
employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
(now known as Homeward Residential, Inc. (Homeward)) in connection
with the sale of certain assets and operations of SCC.

Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of approximately $8
million, interest and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties
and punitive damages on certain claims. On September 2, 2011, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all
claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal, which remains pending.


H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in "Petroski" Suit Appeal Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Barbara Petroski, et al. v. H&R Block
Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. 10-00075-CV-W-DW)
filed an appeal against a court judgment granting summary judgment
in favor of the defendants on all claims, according to H&R Block,
Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On January 25, 2010, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was
filed against the company in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri styled Barbara Petroski, et al.
v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. 10-
00075-CV-W-DW). The plaintiffs generally allege failure to
compensate tax professionals nationwide for training that is
required to be eligible for rehire the following tax season, and
seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. A
conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who
worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for
such training on or after April 15, 2007). Two classes were also
certified under state laws in California and New York (consisting
of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in
California and New York and who were not compensated for such
training on or after March 4, 2006 and on or after March 4, 2004,
respectively). The company filed a motion to decertify the
classes, along with a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
On April 8, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in the
company's favor on all claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal,
which remains pending.


H&R BLOCK: Files Motion to Arbitrate RAL Litigation in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration in IN RE: H&R
Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-
CV-02973-JBG) which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's
Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011
concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege
we engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in violation of
various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that
were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate TILA disclosures, and by
offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs
also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state
statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to 42 states and the District
of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present.
The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits,
compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs. These cases were consolidated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into a single
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled
IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No.
2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG). The company  filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which remains pending.


H&R BLOCK: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in "Lopez III" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. filed an appeal to compel arbitration of the 2011
retail tax compliance fee claims in Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290), according to the
company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.
(Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail
tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks
to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The
company  filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims.
The court denied the motion. The company filed an appeal, which
remains pending.


H&R BLOCK: Allowed to Arbitrate in "Perras" Compliance Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri granted the motion of H&R Block, Inc. to compel
arbitration in Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No.
4:12-cv-00450-DGK) for compliance fee charged to retail tax
clients in the 2011, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance
fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax
seasons.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons nationwide (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and
asserts claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money
had and received, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification in September 2013. The court subsequently
granted the company's motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to the 2011 claims.


H&R BLOCK: IRS Form 8863 Lawsuit Consolidated in Missouri Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a petition
of H&R Block, Inc. to consolidate the federal lawsuits for
coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG), according to the company's Dec. 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in various federal courts and one state court beginning on
March 13, 2013 (including, by way of example, Danielle Pooley v.
H&R Block, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01549-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2013);
Arthur Green and Amy Hamilton v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No.
4:13-cv-11206 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2013); Juan Ortega v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-02023-MMM-RZ (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20,
2013); and Nikki R. Nevill v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No. 1316-
CV07264 (Jackson Cnty., Mo. Cir. Ct. Mar. 21, 2013)).

Taken together, the plaintiffs in these actions purport to
represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during
tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block At
Home online tax services or tax preparation software, and allege
breach of contract, negligence and violation of state consumer
laws in connection with transmission of the form. The plaintiffs
seek damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The company  filed motions to compel arbitration in certain of the
cases.

In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action
voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. On October 10,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the
company's petition to consolidate the federal lawsuits for
coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG).


H&R BLOCK: Signs MOU to Settle Suit Over RSM McGladrey
------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit In re International Textile Group Merger
Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding to resolve the
case, according to H&R Block, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC (MCM) and others in the Court of Common Pleas,
Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346)
styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety
Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC
(f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International
Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action
claim.

Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy,
gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in
connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special
Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006
regarding the merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and
SCI. Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the
court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all
defendants. A class was certified on the remaining claims on
November 20, 2012. The court granted summary judgment in favor of
MCM on June 3, 2013 on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. To
avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the
parties signed a memorandum of understanding to resolve the case,
which is subject to approval by the court.

A portion of the company's loss contingency accrual is related to
this lawsuit for the amount of loss that the company considers
probable and reasonably estimable. The company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intend to
defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to
its outcome or its impact on the company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.

In connection with the sale of RSM and MCM, the company
indemnified the buyers against certain litigation matters. The
indemnities are not subject to a stated term or limit. A portion
of the company's accrual is related to these indemnity
obligations.


IMH FINANCIAL: Executes Terms of Securities Suit Accord
-------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation is executing the terms of a Class Action
Settlement, including preparation of the two securities offerings,
according to the company's Jan. 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On or about November 25, 2013, IMH Financial Corporation received
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement (the "Settlement")
when the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the last remaining
appeal. The Company has since resumed activities to execute the
terms of the Settlement, including preparation of the two
securities offerings. Subject to compliance with securities and
other applicable laws and regulations, the Company is preparing
the final offering materials and plans to begin distributing them
in February 2014.

Each of these offerings is subject to compliance with numerous
applicable regulatory requirements, general securities law and
other accounting and auditing standards, and there can be no
assurance that both or either of the offerings will commence
within the estimated time frame.

The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware entered a Final
Order and Judgment which approved the terms of the settlement of
In Re IMH Secured Loan Fund Unitholders Litigation, according to
IMH Financial's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013. (Class Action Reporter, October 9, 2013)

Three proposed class action lawsuits were subsequently filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery (on May 26, 2010, June 15, 2010 and
June 17, 2010) against the company and certain affiliated
individuals and entities.  The May 26 and June 15, 2010 lawsuits
contain similar allegations, claiming, in general, that fiduciary
duties owed to Fund members and to the Fund were breached because,
among other things, the so-called Conversion Transactions were
unfair to Fund members, constituted self-dealing and that the
information provided about the Conversion Transactions and related
disclosures was false and misleading. The June 17, 2010 lawsuit
focuses on whether the Conversion Transactions constitute a "roll
up" transaction under the Fund's operating agreement, and seeks
damages for breach of the operating agreement.

The parties in the referenced actions were ordered to consolidate
the actions for all purposes into a putative class action lawsuit
captioned In Re IMH Secured Loan Fund Unitholders Litigation
pending in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
("Litigation"). A consolidated class action complaint was filed on
December 17, 2010. After defendants filed a motion to dismiss that
complaint, the Chancery Court ordered plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.

On July 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint
entitled "Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Class Action
Complaint" ("ACC"). On August 29, 2011, defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss in Part the ACC. Plaintiffs filed their brief in
opposition on September 28, 2011 and defendants filed their reply
brief on November 2, 2011.

On January 31, 2012, the company reached a tentative settlement in
principle to resolve all claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the
Litigation, other than the claims of one plaintiff.  The tentative
settlement in principle, memorialized in a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") previously filed with the company's 8-K
dated February 6, 2012, was subject to certain class certification
conditions, confirmatory discovery and final court
approval (including a fairness hearing).

Following the entry of the MOU, the parties completed the
confirmatory discovery and on March 19, 2013, filed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release
("Stipulation"), along with all of the related agreements, with
the Court. The following are some of the key elements of the
proposed settlement:

     a) the company will offer $20.0 million of 4% five-year
subordinated notes to members of the Class in exchange for
2,493,765 shares of IMH common stock at an exchange rate of one
share per $8.02 in subordinated notes ("Exchange Offering");

     b) the company will offer to Class members that are
accredited investors $10.0 million of convertible notes with the
same financial terms as the convertible notes previously issued to
NW Capital ("Rights Offering");

     c) the company will deposit $1.57 million in cash into a
settlement escrow account (less $225,000 to be held in a reserve
escrow account that is available for use by the company to fund
the company's defense costs for other unresolved litigation) which
will be distributed (after payment of notice and administration
costs and any amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys' fees and
expense) to Class members in proportion to the number of the
company's shares held by them as of June 23, 2010;

     d) the company will enact certain agreed upon corporate
governance enhancements, including the appointment of two
independent directors to the company's board of directors upon
satisfaction of certain conditions and the establishment of a
five-person investor advisory committee (which may not be
dissolved until such time as the company established a seven-
member board of directors with at least a majority of independent
directors); and

     e) provides additional restrictions on the future sale or
redemption of the company's common stock held by certain of the
company's executive officers.

Three separate objections were filed with the Chancery Court. The
Chancery Court held a settlement hearing on July 18, 2013 during
which it heard, among other things, argument as to the fairness of
the settlement and arguments from each objector. Following the
settlement hearing held on July 26, 2013, the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware entered a Final Order and Judgment which
approved the terms of the settlement of the Litigation as outlined
in the MOU, with slight modifications.

IMH Financial on Nov. 25 disclosed that on Nov. 15, 2013, the so-
called Kurtz Parties agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, their
appeal of the Class Action Litigation settlement.  (Class Action
Reporter, December 3, 2013)  In connection with the dismissal of
this appeal, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and
release with David Kurtz and certain related shareholders for the
purpose of resolving certain litigation filed in the Superior
Court of Arizona, Maricopa County against the Company and certain
affiliated individuals and entities.  As consideration for the
settlement and in exchange for a full release and satisfaction of
all associated claims and charges by the Kurtz Parties, and with
no admission of any liability, the Company made a cash payment and
acquired 41,659 shares of the Company's stock.  The Company
expects a portion of the settlement to be allocated to the
acquisition of stock and a portion to be charged to litigation
settlement expense.  Pending Company submission to and approval of
final documents by the Company's insurance carriers, the Company
anticipates that a portion of the litigation settlement charge
will be reimbursed.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Okays Insurance Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Virtanen, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge approved a settlement on Feb. 28 of a class-action
lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase for its force-placed insurance
practices, an agreement that could pay more than $300 million to
about 750,000 mortgage borrowers.

The national settlement prohibits the bank for six years from
getting commissions, kickbacks or reinsurance from the insurance,
which it obtains when a homeowner's policy lapses.

Under U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno's order in Miami, class
members will have to file claim forms to recover 12.5 percent of
the net premiums they were charged between Jan. 1, 2008, and
Oct. 4, 2013.  Judge Moreno also barred JPMorgan Chase and
Assurant and its insurance subsidiaries "from inflating premiums"
for six years.

Premiums for force-placed insurance, which were deducted from a
homeowner's escrow account or added to the mortgage loan balance,
were often much higher than the homeowners' initial premiums.
Many of those covered by the lawsuit lost their homes to
foreclosure.

The lawsuit estimated the value of injunctive relief from the bank
changing its practices at $690 million.

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Adam Moskowitz said they were grateful
to Judge Moreno for taking the time to draft an extensive order.


KOSMIC SURF PRO: Recalls Extractor Due to Aspiration Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            March 3, 2014
Posting date:             March 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Aspiration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38121

Affected products: EXTRACTOR (UPC 775115019253) - 475 ml.

The recalled product is marketed under the name EXTRACTOR and is
packaged in a 475 mL spray format.

Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that the recalled
products pose an aspiration hazard and consequently do not meet
the warning labelling and child-resistant closure requirements for
consumer chemical products under Canadian law.

Aspiration occurs when a chemical product is ingested and then is
introduced into the lungs through coughing and/or vomiting.  It
can result in severe adverse health effects including pulmonary
injury, chemical pneumonia, and death.

Neither Health Canada nor Kosmic Surf-Pro has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.

Approximately 7200 units of the recalled products were sold in
shops and hardware stores.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
September 2012 to January 2014.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Kosmic Surf Pro
                   St-Amable
                   Quebec
                   Canada

  Distributor      Autovision Lussier Inc.
                   St-Amable
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
contact the company at 1-877-711-0711 for a refund.


KOSMIC SURF-PRO: Recalls The Goo Buster Due to Aspiration Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            March 3, 2014
Posting date:             March 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Aspiration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38119

Affected products: The recall involves all formats of the
following chemical product: THE GOO BUSTER (BO-1990-5 UPC
775115019901) - 475 mL and THE GOO BUSTER (BO-1990-2 UPC
775115019932) - 230 mL

The recalled product is marketed under the name THE GOO BUSTER and
is packaged in 475 mL and 230 mL spray formats.

Health Canada's auditing process has revealed that the recalled
products pose aspiration hazards and subsequently do not meet the
warning labelling and child-resistant closure requirements for
consumer chemical products under Canadian law.

Aspiration occurs when a chemical product is ingested and then is
introduced into the lungs through coughing and/or vomiting.  It
can result in severe adverse health effects, including pulmonary
injury, chemical pneumonia, and death.

Neither Health Canada nor Kosmic Surf-Pro has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.

Approximately 60,000 units of the recalled products were sold at
various retail locations and hardware stores.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from
November 2011 to January 2014.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Kosmic Surf Pro
                   St-Amable
                   Quebec
                   Canada

  Distributor      Kosmic Surf Pro
                   St-Amable
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Customers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact the company at 1-877-711-0711 for a refund.


LUCERNE FOODS: Recalls Various Sandwich Products Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            March 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Lucerne Foods
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Lucerne Foods is recalling various sandwich products from the
marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and may have been sold in other
provinces.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

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

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

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

Affected products:

  Common Name              Code(s) on Product             UPC
  -----------              -----------------              ---
Roast Beef Submarine    BB MR 11, BB MR 12,         689048 031103
                        BB MR 13, BB MR 14, BB MR 17
Meat Lover's Sandwich   BB MR 11, BB MR 12,         68904803117
                        BB MR 13, BB MR 16, BB MR 17 9
Roast Beef Submarine    4051                        079944009912
Roast Beef & Cheddar    4051                        079944 009875
Sandwich


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Approves Immigrant Detainees' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Contrada, writing for The Republican, reports that former
Franklin County House of Correction inmate Mark Reid's struggle
has become the struggle of all immigrants in Massachusetts
awaiting deportation hearings while in detention, thanks to a
recent ruling by a federal court judge in Springfield.

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor ruled that
Mr. Reid, who had been detained for 16 months at the time, had a
right to a hearing to determine if he could be released on bail
pending his immigration status.  In February, Judge Ponsor made
Mr. Reid's case a class action suit, extending it to an entire
class of detainees in Massachusetts, which he estimated at 39-42
as of his ruling.

Mr. Reid, 49, had his hearing on Feb. 3, and an immigration judge
set bail at $25,000.  It took friends and organizations with an
interest in the case several weeks to raise the money, but on
Feb. 25 Mr. Reid walked free after more than a year behind bars.

Born in Jamaica, Mr. Reid moved to Connecticut in 1978 and was
considered a legal permanent resident, a step towards becoming a
naturalized U.S. citizen.  In a recent telephone interview,
Mr. Reid described his detention at the Franklin County jail in
Greenfield, which has a contract to house detainees for the
federal office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  Although
he praised Sheriff Christopher Donelan's staff for treating him
well, Mr. Reid said he and his fellow immigrants often felt that
the world had forgotten them.

Before he was incarcerated, Mr. Reid earned a GED and served in
the U.S. Army Reserve.  However, he eventually got into trouble
with the law, compiling an extensive criminal record that includes
convictions for larceny, assault and drug offenses.

In 2010, Mr. Reid was sentenced to prison in Connecticut on some
of those charges, but was paroled after three years.  On the day
he was set free, ICE took him back into custody with an eye
towards deporting him.

While Mr. Reid appealed his deportation, he filed a motion for a
bond hearing in the hope of being released while awaiting
resolution of his case.  Relief came only after he turned the
federal court.

In his ruling, Judge Ponsor cited some U.S. Supreme Court
decisions that concluded detention beyond six months without a
bond hearing was unreasonable.  In a separate ruling a month
later, Judge Ponsor extended the ruling to an entire class of
detainees in Massachusetts with circumstances similar to
Mr. Reid's.  While he noted that the outcomes might differ,
Judge Ponsor wrote that immigrants detained for more than six
months are entitled to bond hearings.

Mr. Reid, who is represented by Jerome N. Frank Legal Services
Organization at Yale Law School, said he has become a certified
paralegal and made it his mission to help other detainees.

As Mr. Reid described it, the immigrant detainees at the Franklin
County jail were housed in a dormitory separate from the other
inmates.

"Eighty percent of them can't read," he said, "much less afford an
attorney."


MATELAS D'OR: Recalls Futon-Style Double Mattresses Over Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            March 4, 2014
Posting date:             March 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38161

Affected products: Futon-style double mattresses with springs
manufactured by the company Matelas d'Or

The recall involves all the futon-style double mattresses with
springs manufactured by the company Matelas d'Or on and after
September 1, 2012.

These futon-style mattresses with springs can be used as both a
sofa and a bed because the mattress is on a removable base that
makes it possible to switch between these options.  The cover for
the futon-style mattresses varies with the units produced.

Matelas d'Or is voluntarily recalling these products after Health
Canada's sampling and evaluation program determined that these
futon-style double mattresses pose a flammability hazard.

The Hazardous Products (Mattresses) Regulations require that all
mattresses, including futons, resist ignition when tested with a
smouldering cigarette ignition.

Neither Health Canada nor Matelas d'Or has received any reports of
incident or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 289 futon-style double mattresses with springs are
being recalled and were sold in retail furniture stores.

The recalled futon-style double mattresses were manufactured in
Quebec with springs were sold from September 2012 to Feb. 2014.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Matelas d'Or
                   Lanoraie
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using these futon-style double
mattresses with springs and contact the company for repair.


MERCANTILE TRADING: Recalls Kid's Rainwear With Neck Drawstring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            March 4, 2014
Posting date:             March 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38165

Affected products: Children's Rainwear with neck drawstrings

The recall involves these products:

  Description                    Style    Colour         Size
  -----------                    -----    ------         ----
  Children's Unisex              9500    Navy/Yellow    4-5-6-6X
  Reversible Nylon/PVC Raincoat
  Children's Unisex Reversible   9600    Navy/Yellow    8-10-12
  Nylon/PVC Raincoat Poncho      3600    Navy/Yellow    42" x 62"

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

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

For more information on the hazards related to drawstrings on
children's upper outerwear and tips to help consumers eliminate
these hazards, see Health Canada's: 'Is Your Child Safe',
'Industry Guide to Second-hand Products', and 'Children's
Sleepwear: Flammability Requirement Guidelines'.

Approximately 2283 of the recalled products were sold at
L'Aubainerie in the province of Quebec.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
2010 to 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     Mercantile Trading Corp.
                  Montreal
                  Quebec
                  Canada

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


MT. GOX: Customer Files Class Action Following Bankruptcy Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crain's Chicago Business reports that bankrupt Mt. Gox, once the
world's biggest Bitcoin exchange, was sued by a customer in
federal court in Chicago in a proposed class-action case
representing all U.S. users who lost money.

Bitcoin, a digital currency, was introduced in 2008 by one or more
programmers under the name Satoshi Nakamoto and has since gained
traction with merchants around the world.  The virtual currency
has no central issuing authority.  It uses a public ledger to
verify transactions while preserving users' anonymity.

The Mt. Gox exchange announced Feb. 24 it had lost 750,000
Bitcoins belonging to users and 100,000 more of its own.  The
exchange filed for bankruptcy on Feb. 28 in Tokyo, saying in a
statement that its debt exceeded its assets by 2.7 billion yen.

"This catastrophic loss has not only revealed the instability of a
burgeoning new industry, it has also uncovered a massive scheme to
defraud millions of consumers into providing a private company
with real, paper money in exchange for virtual currency," Illinois
resident Gregory Greene alleged in a complaint filed on Feb. 27 in
federal court in Chicago.

Mr. Greene lives in the Chicago suburbs, according to one of his
lawyers.  Mr. Greene is pursuing class-action status on behalf of
all people in the U.S. who paid Mt. Gox to buy, sell or trade in
bitcoins as well as those who had their currency stored with the
Japanese entity on Feb. 7.  Mr. Greene is also seeking imposition
of a constructive trust over the business and an accounting.


NEW JERSEY: Christie Campaign Manager Fights Bridgegate Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Gov. Chris Christie's campaign manager, Bill Stepien, is asking a
New Jersey judge to quash a documents subpoena from the
legislative committee investigating last September's closure of
George Washington Bridge access lanes.

Mercer County Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson will rule on the
validity of the subpoenas issued to Mr. Stepien and Christie's
former deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, after a hearing
scheduled for next Tuesday.

Both have invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination, but the Legislative Select Committee on
Investigation says the privilege does not apply to demands for
documents.

In a brief that was set to be filed with Jacobson on March 4,
Mr. Stepien's attorney, Kevin Marino of Chatham's Marino,
Tortorella & Boyle, took issue with that stance.

"The committee makes the yet more absurd argument that Mr. Stepien
cannot rely on the Fifth Amendment because he is not in any real
danger of incrimination," Mr. Marino said.  "To be sure,
Mr. Stepien is an innocent man.  But his innocence by no means
ensures, or even suggests, that he will not be 'ensnared by
ambiguous circumstances' if forced to comply with the subpoena."
"It is well settled that, in addition to proscribing compulsory
oral testimony that might tend to incriminate the speaker, the
Fifth Amendment protects innocent individuals against the forced
compulsion of acts that might tend to incriminate them," he said.
In a series of rulings, the New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted
the "act-of-production" doctrine, which "inoculates people from
being forced to contribute to their own prosecution," Mr. Marino
added.

Mr. Marino revealed in the brief that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation contacted Mr. Stepien on Jan. 17, asking if he would
be interviewed, and Mr. Stepien declined.  Further, in mid-
February, the FBI questioned Mr. Stepien's Mercer County landlord
about his conduct and character, including whether he was married,
if he was a rowdy tenant and if he paid his rent on time, the
brief said.
In a footnote, Mr. Marino expressed displeasure at the decision of
the committee's cochairman, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-
Middlesex, to disclose to the media that the committee's special
counsel, Reid Schar, of Chicago's Jenner & Block, has met with the
U.S. Attorney's Office to discuss the case.

"That a politician armed with subpoena power and spoiling for
higher office -- particularly one who has openly prejudged his
investigation and whose counsel is consulting with federal
prosecutors overseeing a similar investigation -- can so freely
disclose the information his legislative committee obtains by
subpoena and provide the press with real-time updates on that
evidence, conduct that would violate Rule 6(e) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure if engaged in by the United States
Attorney proceeding by grand jury subpoenas, is a problem for
another day," Mr. Marino said.

Ms. Kelly's attorney, Michael Critchley, of Roseland's Critchley,
Kinum & Vazquez, had been given an extension of until March 6 to
file his brief in opposition to the subpoena.


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Rail Driver Files Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that a driver for a high-speed rail project funded in part through
federal "stimulus" funds has filed a putative class action lawsuit
against his employer, alleging he was not paid adequate wages for
the work he performed.

John Garecht filed a lawsuit Feb. 24 in Madison County Circuit
Court against Professional Transportation, Inc. and Ronald D.
Romain.  Mr. Garecht claims he was working for defendant, which
contracted for the Illinois high-speed rail project, and as part
of his job he was required to provide ground transportation
services to the Union Pacific Railroad for a public works project
designed to allow passenger trains to travel between St. Louis and
Chicago at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour, according to the
complaint.

Due to federal funding supplied for the project, via the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, all employees associated with it
should have been paid the same wages as public employees for the
county in which they worked, the complaint says.  However,
Mr. Garecht claims he did not receive sufficient funds.

Mr. Garecht is seeking a certification of his lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit.  He also is seeking statutory damages of 2 percent
per month of the wages due to him and other plaintiffs, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other relief the court
deems just.  He is being represented by Joel A. Kunin and Mark M.
Silvermintz -- msilvermintz@kuninlaw.com -- of The Kunin Law
Offices in Collinsville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 14-L-296.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 14-cv-10225
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sarepta between July
24, 2013 and November 12, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of
the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sarepta securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 28, 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.

Sarepta is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
discovery and development of RNA-based therapeutics for the
treatment of rare and infectious diseases.

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 materially false or misleading
statements concerning, among other things, (1) the prospects of
the FDA's acceptance for consideration of a New Drug Application
("NDA") for eteplirsen, Sarepta's pharmaceutical to treat Duchenne
muscular dystrophy, based on its Phase IIb study data set, and (2)
the significance of that data set.

On November 11, 2013, shares of Sarepta declined sharply after the
Company announced that it was told by the Food and Drug
Administration, (FDA) not to file for accelerated approval of
eteplirsen.  On this news, shares of Sarepta fell $23.40 per
share, more than 64.00%, on intraday trading, to a price of $13.16
on November 11, 2013.

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


SATCON TECHNOLOGY: May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP pursuant to
an Order of the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts:

In Re SATCON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS

MASTER FILE NO: 1:11-CV-11270-DPW

CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SATCON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that a hearing
will be held on May 19, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable
Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the
principal amount of $3,000,000.00 should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the
Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the
Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED ANY SATCON COMMON SHARES BETWEEN AUGUST 5, 2010
AND AUGUST 10, 2011, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE
OF SATCON COMMON SHARES DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement
Fairness Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain copies by writing to Satcon Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera,
CA 94976-0990, or on the Internet at
http://www.satconsecuritiessettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by
mail or online no later than May 19, 2014, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased Satcon common shares and you desire to be
excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
postmarked (or hand-delivered) no later than April 14, 2014, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Amended Settlement
Agreement.  Any objection to the settlement must be received by
each of the following recipients no later than April 14, 2014:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

          John Joseph Moakley
          U.S. Courthouse1
          Courthouse Way, Suite 2300
          Boston, MA 02210

Lead Counsel:

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Settling Defendants:

          James W. Prendergast, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

Dated January 28, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


STATE FARM: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Guadiana" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In Rosemary Guadiana, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, Defendant, NO. CIV 07-326 TUC FRZ (LAB), (D. Ariz.),
pending before the court is the defendant's motion for summary
judgment filed on October 14, 2013, pursuant to Rule 56,
FED.R.CIV.P.

The plaintiff in this class action, Rosemary Guadiana, claims the
defendant breached her homeowner's insurance policy by failing to
pay the cost of tearing out and replacing part of the structure
when she replaced her polybutylene (PB) plumbing. Ms. Guadiana
intends to prove at trial that when a section of PB pipe springs a
leak, the only way to fix the plumbing system is to replace all
the PB pipe. Having done just that, Ms. Guadiana claims her
insurer must pay the tear-out cost associated with accessing and
replacing all that pipe.

The defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm),
moved that the court grant summary judgment in its favor, arguing
that Ms. Guadiana cannot show it was necessary to replace her
entire PB piping system when one of her pipes sprung a leak.

District Judge Leslie A. Bowman denied the motion saying there
remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a PB piping
system must be completely replaced once it springs a leak.

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2014 Report and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/dajHJs from
Leagle.com.


TARGET CORP: CIO Steps Down Amid Data Breach Probe
--------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bjorhus, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the chief
information officer of Target Corp. is resigning as the retail
giant overhauls its information security and compliance operations
amid investigations into a damaging network break-in late last
year.

The resignation of Beth M. Jacob is immediate, the Minneapolis-
based company said on March 5, and Target is searching for an
interim CIO to serve in what it described as a long-term,
temporary position to guide it through the technology
restructuring.

In a statement on March 5, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel described
the search for an interim CIO as a "first step."

"While we are still in the process of an ongoing investigation, we
recognize that the information security environment is evolving
rapidly," Mr. Steinhafel said.

Mr. Steinhafel outlined other changes to Target's information
security management.  It has created the position of chief
information security officer and is recruiting outside the company
for that position.  It has also started an external search for a
chief compliance officer.

"We are also working with an external adviser, Promontory
Financial Group, to help us evaluate our technology, structure,
processes and talent as part of this transformation,"
Mr. Steinhafel said.

Target declined requests for interviews.

Promontory, headquartered in Washington, D.C., advises governments
and companies, primarily financial institutions around the world,
on complex risk and regulatory challenges.  Bloomberg, for
instance, hired Promontory to help it assess its client data
issues following last year's revelation that Bloomberg reporters
were monitoring how clients use their Bloomberg terminals.  A
company spokesman said Promontory doesn't discuss client matters.

The chief information security officer position is a new one for
Target.  Brenda Bjerke, Target's senior director, information
protection who held some of the responsibilities of a chief
information security officer, will remain with the company, a
spokeswoman said.  She said she couldn't say what Ms. Bjerke's
role would be.

The company provided a copy of Ms. Jacob's resignation letter,
dated March 5, in which Ms. Jacob wrote "this is a good time for a
change."

"This is a difficult decision after 12 rewarding years with the
company I love," Ms. Jacob wrote.  "This is a time of significant
transformation for the retail industry and for Target."

Ms. Jacob, who holds an MBA from the University of Minnesota,
first joined the company in 1984 as a department store assistant
buyer when it was known as Dayton's, then left and returned in
2002 to Target as director of guest contact centers.  She was
promoted to CIO and executive vice president of Target Technology
Services in 2008, and reported to Mr. Steinhafel.

Ms. Jacob ran Target's technology infrastructure during a period
of rapid change, including the relocation of some of its
technology operations to India.  Critics have noted that she has
deep operations experience but lacked the information technology
background that many see as increasingly important for a CIO at a
major corporation.

Ms. Jacob's ouster was anticipated by many industry analysts, and
welcomed.

"Target has not been keeping up in terms of keeping pace with the
way they need to move forward with technology," said Amy Koo, a
senior analyst at Kantar Retail in Boston, Mass.  "There was not
enough oversight, clearly, or enough controls."

The most public technology issues have been with Target's struggle
to fortify its website, which at one time was run by Amazon.com.
The company spent two years re-engineering the website only to
have it crash in 2011 less than a month after its debut, during
the launch of highly anticipated Missoni merchandise.

Brian Yarbrough, consumer analyst at Edward Jones & Co., said
Target is making a statement that it needs to take its technology
game "to the next level."

"I'm sure for somebody this will be a great role," Mr. Yarbrough
said.  "You can come in and look like a hero."


US BANK: Calf. High Court Reluctant to Devise New Sampling Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that California's
highest court sounded ready on March 4 to throw out a $15 million
overtime class action that employers describe as a poster child
for the misuse of statistical evidence.  But the court seemed
reluctant to devise broad new rules limiting the use of statistics
and sampling, which should come as a relief to plaintiffs lawyers
anxious about another blow to employment class actions.

"You aren't taking the position that statistical analysis can
never be admitted, are you?" Justice Carol Corrigan asked
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger partner Timothy Freudenberger.
"Do we need to answer the abstract question" about statistical
evidence and due process, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye asked.

Mr. Freudenberger, who represents employer U.S. Bank, told them
both the answer is no, but Justice Goodwin Liu did not sound
reassured.  He suggested that even an ostensibly narrow ruling
tied to the unusual circumstances in Duran v. U.S. Bank could
knock out a broad swath of cases.

"Your position is that class certification is never appropriate
for this kind of case," he told Mr. Freudenberger.  "You're trying
to tiptoe around that by taking a narrow position, but I don't see
it, counsel."

The Duran dispute centers on 260 business bank officers -- agents
who sell loans and other products to small businesses -- who
weren't paid overtime.  Rather than hold numerous individual
trials, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman
certified a class and took testimony from 20 representative
officers.  All testified that they did most of their work from
inside a bank branch, which would render them eligible for extra
pay.

U.S. Bank says the sample was skewed, and that Judge Freedman
ignored declarations from some 75 other officers who said they did
most of their work outside the bank.  The First District Court of
Appeal ruled in 2012 that Judge Freedman improperly relied on the
sampled testimony to find liability, then compounded the problem
by extrapolating damages that had a margin of error of 43 percent.

The March 4 hearing drew a large crowd of employment lawyers, and
even Judge Freedman's successor in Alameda County's complex
litigation department, Judge Wynne Carvill.  The zealous advocacy
that seemed to give Judge Freedman headaches was on display, with
the justices having to caution both Mr. Freudenberger and class
counsel Edward Wynne from interrupting the court at various points
of the hour-long hearing.

The justices quickly latched onto the issue of sample size,
wanting to know how Judge Freedman arrived at the number 20.
"It was completely arbitrary," Mr. Freudenberger asserted.  "It
was for convenience and case management."

"Let's assume the court misstepped there," Justice Kathryn Mickle
Werdegar said.  Would a broader sample size solve the problem?
No, Mr. Freudenberger argued, because the trial proved that
individualized issues predominate over common issues.  "The court
still hasn't heard the testimony of over 90 percent of the class,"
he said.  "We were prevented from doing that.  And yet, according
to this judgment, they're entitled to about $14 million."

Justice Corrigan sounded sympathetic. "At some point during the
trial of this case, it became apparent that the individual
questions were swamping the common questions," she posited, later
describing Judge Freedman's approach as, "Don't confuse me with
details now that it looks a bit messy midtrial."

Class counsel Wynne, meanwhile, argued that Judge Freedman chose
the sample size only after receiving expert testimony that assured
him of its statistical validity.  "The court did not pick it out
of thin air," he said.

Justice Marvin Baxter, usually one of the quieter justices, fired
the first question on March 4 and remained active throughout the
hearing.  Much of his focus was on class treatment of a case that
turns on the location of individual employees.  "The problem I see
is how do you establish common proof of that?" he asked.

Wynne said the officers testified not only about their own
personal experience, but the bank's policy of encouraging them to
stay in-house and work the phones.  Judge Freedman also heard
testimony from bank managers, and properly found the bank's 75
declarations lacking credibility because of coercion. "The defense
is entitled to due process, not unlimited process," he said.

But most of the justices sounded inclined to send the case back to
superior court, probably on the basis that the sample in the case
was faulty. "We don't have to resolve the question of whether
always and everywhere, a case of this nature can't be handled as a
class action," Justice Corrigan said.  "We don't need to make a
sweeping statement about statistical sampling."

Justice Liu seemed concerned, though, that even a "narrow" ruling
would touch a wide range of misclassification cases. "Taken to its
logical extreme, your position is it's always going to come down
to individualized proof," he told Mr. Freudenberger, "no matter
what the company's policies were."

However sampling might be handled, there will always be some
margin of error, Justice Liu said.  And live testimony is hardly
infallible.  "Do they keep records?" Justice Liu asked Mr.
Freudenberger about his 75 declarants.  "Do they tabulate all the
time they spend inside and outside the office?"

"It's the best evidence we've got," Mr. Freudenberger replied.
Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe partner Steven Zieff, one of the
pioneers of statistical evidence and cocounsel to amicus curiae
California Employment Lawyers Association, said after the hearing
it was clear the justices had concerns about the rigor of
proceedings in Duran.  But he said he did not foresee the court
overturning recent precedents on sampling such as Sav-On Drug
Stores v. Superior Court or his own Bell v. Farmers Insurance.  In
many misclassification cases, he said, "the class action remedy is
the only way to vindicate the rights of workers."


* Angelos Firm's Bid to Consolidate 10,000 Asbestos Suits Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Duncan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
Baltimore circuit judge rejected on March 5 a plan by the law firm
of Peter G. Angelos to combine more than 10,000 asbestos-related
lawsuits, questioning whether the cases caught in a massive
backlog have enough in common to be heard in concert.

"This Court is well aware of the need to provide justice for the
large number of parties whose cases still languish on this
docket," Judge John M. Glynn wrote.  "But the current proposal is
entirely too vague and unsupported to inspire confidence."

Mr. Angelos' firm argued that Baltimore courts' policy, which
prioritizes the cases of the sickest plaintiffs, leaves many
clients little chance of getting their cases heard.  The firm
wanted to consolidate many such cases -- using a small group of
plaintiffs to stand in for many others, obtaining jury verdicts
and then using those verdicts to more rapidly deal with the
remaining cases.

The technique was part of an asbestos litigation strategy that
helped Angelos build his fortune in the early 1990s.  Courts have
been moving away from the approach, and Judge Glynn's ruling was a
victory for the potential defendants in the case -- manufacturers
and suppliers of asbestos, as well as contractors that used it --
who said consolidation would undermine their right to a fair
hearing.

Asbestos, commonly used as an insulation material throughout the
20th century, has been linked to many types of cancer and lung
diseases.  Maryland has many cases because thousands of workers
were exposed through their work in shipyards and steel mills.

Judge Glynn, who oversees asbestos cases in Baltimore,
acknowledged that the city has a backlog that needs to be dealt
with somehow, but said the plaintiffs' lawyers had offered too
little detail on how the cases might move forward.

Theodore M. Flerlage Jr., an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he
was disappointed that the judge did not offer a clearer way ahead.
He said "the clock is ticking" for his clients and something
should be done to resolve their cases.  It's not in the interests
of the defendants to get the process moving more quickly, Mr.
Flerlage said.

"If you stick your head in the sand long enough there won't be any
plaintiffs left," he said.

But Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform, an industry group that has watched the case closely,
said that Judge Glynn made the right move.  She called the Angelos
plan an "outrageous" attempt to force defendants into "mass
settlements."

Judge Glynn wrote that he welcomed further discussion on how to
reform Baltimore's approach to handling such cases, but did not
decide on any one idea.  The judge suggested that large numbers of
cases could be arbitrated, or that the General Assembly could take
up the issue.  The most promising approach, Judge Glynn wrote,
might be to adapt an approach used in a Pennsylvania federal court
that requires plaintiffs to submit detailed information about
their claims so cases can be more easily prioritized or thrown
out.


* Texas Tops List for Vehicles Listed for Sale With Open Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa McUsic, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that Texas is
No. 1 again.  But this time, it's for vehicles listed for sale
online that have an open safety recall, meaning the manufacturer
ordered a recall but the vehicle was not repaired.

Nationwide, 3.5 million vehicles listed for sale in 2013 had
unfixed recalls based on their vehicle identification number,
according to Carfax, an online automotive information service.

Texas had 308,000 of those, almost 10 percent.  That's nearly 50
percent more than the second- and third-place states -- California
with 214,000 and Missouri with 212,000.

Carfax spokesman Christopher Basso said many people don't know
about recalls because they moved or the car changed hands.  And
many car owners may not realize that the item can often be fixed
for free.  Carfax provides recall information for free on its
website if you have the 17-digit VIN.

"For years, the open-recall information has been VIN-specific,"
Mr. Basso said.  "We feel every safety-related recall needs to be
addressed.  Without fixing the problem, a car can cause a fire.
Air bags can be deployed inadvertently.  Lots of things can go
wrong."

Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
reported 632 safety recalls involving almost 22 million vehicles,
the most since 2004, when recalls affected 30.8 million vehicles.
Toyota had the most recalled vehicles for the second year in a
row, with 5.3 million in 2013.

The report includes heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles and buses,
along with light-duty trucks and cars.  Among the largest 18
automakers, 184 recalls were made for about 19.6 million vehicles
last year.  Both numbers are increases from 2012, when those same
manufacturers issued 153 recalls for about 15.6 million vehicles.

Once a defect is found, the manufacturer can repair the vehicle at
no charge; replace it with an identical or similar vehicle; or
refund the purchase price, minus a reasonable allowance for
depreciation.

The free repair has a time frame.  To be eligible for a free
remedy, the agency says, the vehicle cannot be more than 10 years
old on the date that the defect or noncompliance is determined.
Vehicle age is calculated from the date of sale to the first
buyer.  If, for example, a defect is found in 2013 and a recall is
ordered, manufacturers must correct the problem for free only for
vehicles bought new in 2004 through 2013.  The agency said used
cars too old for the free repair should still be fixed for
passenger safety, even if the money comes out of your own pocket.

The agency said that all manufacturers must use a distinctive
label on required mailings to notify owners of recalls.  The
requirement was introduced to help owners distinguish recall
notices from junk mail.

"Recalls only work if consumers are aware of them," Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx said.  "This new label will allow consumers
to quickly recognize recall notices mailed to their homes so they
can act quickly to get their vehicles, child restraints, tires or
other motor vehicle equipment fixed."

The red-and-black label says "Important Safety Recall Information
Issued in Accordance to Federal Law" and has the logos of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
Transportation Department.  It is designed to protect consumers
from sales and marketing materials that mimic legitimate recall
alerts but are really just advertising for unrelated products.

Starting this year, the safety administration is requiring car and
motorcycle manufacturers to give consumers a free online tool that
will enable them to search for recall information by VIN.

That tool will be at www.safercar.gov by late August.  Consumers
can already check for open recalls, investigations and complaints
on the website.

Before buying a used car in Texas, check out its safety history.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Sacked Over OSHA Fibro Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank Donnelly, writing for Staten Island Advance, reports that
Richmond University Medical Center was more concerned about the
bottom line than its workers' health, contends a lawsuit filed by
a plumber allegedly sacked for complaining about asbestos
exposure.

James Pepe, 33, says supervisors and hospital officials repeatedly
denied his requests for protective gear, claiming it would "cost
too much money" to abate exposed asbestos, which he allegedly
found in the plumbing shop and on pipes in various areas of the
building.

Derided as a "clown" and a "hypocrite," by supervisors, Mr. Pepe
was fired in December after blowing the whistle to the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleges his
lawsuit.

"Defendants ultimately terminated plaintiff Pepe's employment
solely because he complained that defendants were in violation of
federal health and safety laws by ordering employees, including .
. . Pepe, to work in enclosed spaces with exposed asbestos without
any of the required protective gear, proper notification or
requisite training," his court filing contends.

Mr. Pepe has sued Richmond University and Mount Sinai Hospital,
with which Richmond University is affiliated, according to his
legal papers filed in state Supreme Court, St. George.  Advance
records show the two hospitals entered into a clinical affiliation
in the spring of 2012.

Mr. Pepe seeks unspecified monetary damages.

His lawyer, Alex Umansky of the Manhattan-based firm, Phillips &
Associates, declined comment on the lawsuit.

In a statement, Richmond University said Mr. Pepe's sacking "was
not in any way connected" to his safety allegations to OSHA.

The hospital said it conducted "extensive" tests and forwarded
them to OSHA.

"We are confident that there is no exposure risk to employees or
patients," said the statement.  "Richmond University Medical
Center takes all safely issues very seriously and has an active
process for investigating and addressing environmental concerns in
a timely manner."

A Mount Sinai spokesman did not immediately return a phone call
Tuesday seeking comment.

According to court papers, the hospital hired Mr. Pepe as a
plumber in October 2005.

In early 2007, he complained to his plumbing supervisor about
exposed and friable asbestos "all over" the plumbing shop, said
court documents.

He was told to forget about it because the hospital "can't afford
to have it abated," court filings contend.

Asbestos-related illnesses, which attack the respiratory and
digestive systems, are caused by exposure to airborne asbestos --
typically over time.

Tradesmen, such as plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters,
electricians and insulation workers who labored before the early
1970s, when use of asbestos products was prevalent in those
industries, are considered to be the most susceptible to asbestos-
related illnesses.

Between 2007 and 2013, Mr. Pepe was required to perform a number
of jobs which he believed potentially exposed him to asbestos,
said court documents.  He was asked to repair a high-pressure
steam pipe inside a tunnel at the hospital and to fix asbestos-
insulated pipes in the basement, sub-basement and in ceilings on
various floors.

He contends he was rebuffed and sometimes threatened with losing
his job each time he expressed concern about possible asbestos
exposure and asked for protective gear.  He often was told that
wetting down the pipes would make them safe to work on, court
documents state.

"Shockingly, defendants wholly ignored plaintiff Pepe's very
serious complaints of asbestos contamination in the workplace and
immediately directed plaintiff Pepe to continue working in
enclosed areas containing asbestos," said court filings.

Fearful of losing his job, Mr. Pepe always did the work.

Even so, Mr. Pepe alleges he was ridiculed.

The facilities supervisor called him a "hypocrite" because he
worried about asbestos-causing lung cancer, yet still smoked
cigarettes, court records said.

That supervisor also called Mr. Pepe a "clown" and warned a co-
worker, "Don't pick up any of [Pepe's] bad habits."

When Mr. Pepe asked another supervisor if he'd make his own son
work in such conditions, the man responded, "Hell, no!" maintain
court records.

Tensions boiled over in November of last year.

Mr. Pepe refused to work on a steam pipe, whose fittings were
allegedly covered with asbestos, unless given protective gear,
said court documents.

He was suspended without pay.

About a week later, he complained to OSHA on two separate
occasions about working conditions at Richmond University.

Ted Fitzgerald, an OSHA spokesman, said the agency is
investigating a complaint about the hospital.  However,
Mr. Fitzgerald said he wasn't at liberty to identify the
complainant or the nature of the allegation.

Mr. Pepe said he was fired on Dec. 3, less than a week after his
second complaint to OSHA.  He alleges he was sacked under the
pretext of failing to notify his supervisor and timely contain a
water leak that caused significant damages on Nov. 15.

Mr. Pepe contends he informed his supervisor that an on-site
contractor shut the open valve and housekeeping was called to
clean up the standing water, in accordance with protocol.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Rep in Trial Says Products Safe
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that nearing the end of a rare Madison County, Ill. asbestos
trial, the jury was given the chance to hear directly from a Crane
Co. representative who stands firm in his belief that Crane Co.
gaskets and packing were not hazardous.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Tom King was a machinist mate
for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and again from 1965-1969.  He
later died from mesothelioma on May 23 at age 71.

As a machinist mate, Mr. King's job was to change gaskets, repair
pumps and repair valves.  Part of his job required him to scrape
out dry, baked chrysotile asbestos form gaskets in order to
replace them with new ones.  He was also exposed to asbestos
packing, which was used in valves and pumps as a sealant to
prevent leaks.

Crane Co.'s Vice President of Environment Health and Safety
Anthony Pantaleoni's testimony was first heard on Feb. 28 when the
plaintiffs showed his video deposition.

Mr. Pantaleoni joined Crane Co. in 1989 and became a designated
representative in 2003.

In his video deposition, Mr. Pantaleoni agrees that Crane Co.'s
primary product line is dedicated to valves and valve component
parts, which sometimes included asbestos.  He said the company
first started selling the products in the early 1900s and didn't
stop selling asbestos-containing valves until the mid-1980s.

Mr. Pantaleoni later stated in his deposition that Crane Co.
continued producing one product line of asbestos-containing valves
into the 1990s.

Crane Co. became aware of asbestos health hazards and illnesses in
the early 70s, he said.

However, in his defense testimony heard by the court on Feb. 26,
Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co. still to this day does not believe
the gaskets and packing it sold was hazardous.

Questioned by Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery, Mr. Pantaleoni said
all asbestos-containing gaskets and packing were provided to them
by third-party companies to be sold by Crane Co.

"We never manufactured asbestos, never mined it, never milled it
in any of our operations," Mr. Pantaleoni said.

He admitted that while Crane Co. didn't make the asbestos-
containing gaskets and packing, it did put them into its products.

Mr. Pantaleoni said the valves they made were simple to use, but
were intricate to construct.  It is important that they are made
in a clean environment to prevent malfunctions and leaking.

"While the valve itself is a simple mechanism, the way you make it
is a critical aspect," he said.

It was also important that the metals used are correct, the
formulations are correct and the way those metals are used are
correct.

He went on to explain that valves do not require asbestos in order
to function, saying using asbestos or not makes no determination
of whether it functions correctly.  He added that the material
running through the valve would determine whether or not asbestos
is needed.

"That valve doesn't care," he said.

He proceeded to demonstrate the components of a valve and how it
is used or manipulated on a 1.5 inch brass valve from Crane Co.

"If you had a flanged end and you're bolting that into a piping
system, then you have to have a gasket in order to make a proper
fit," he explained.

He showed the jury how a gasket would seal the surface of the
valve to prevent a metal-to-metal contact, which would leak.

"All they are is sealing devices," Mr. Pantaleoni said.  "They're
just put in there to prevent leakage."

Therefore, the gasket is not actually part of the valve.

Mr. Pantaleoni made it clear that while asbestos was not necessary
in a gasket, gaskets were necessary in certain types of valves.
Without a proper sealant, the valve or a line could explode.

Answering a juror's question, he explained that packing isn't
necessary in all valves. But for those that do require packing,
the material would go in the stem of the valve.  Packing is not
friable, but if it is dry it could still be dusty, he said.

Regardless of whether or not asbestos was required, Mr. Pantaleoni
said Crane Co. was following Navy specifications, which dictated
exactly what was needed.  Drawings identified every part or
component part and the materials associated with it.

"Well, the Navy was the most stringent customer that Crane had,"
he said.

"If that specification said that had to be asbestos, that's what
it had to be," he added.

The Navy even provided inspectors located in Crane Co.'s
operations to make sure the products met those specifications and
often performed random testing on those products.

Because the Navy specifically asked for flange valves, gaskets
were required, he said.  And those gaskets had to be asbestos to
meet military specifications, he said.

Answering a juror's question, Mr. Pantaleoni said Crane Co.
provided technical manuals if the Navy requested them, but in most
cases, the Navy would take those and produce their own manuals.
However, he added that he has never seen a technical manual for a
pump or a valve.

During redirect by the defense, Mr. Pantaleoni said it was his
understanding that the Navy did not provide respirators for use
aboard their ships when working with asbestos-containing
materials.

When asked about the safety efforts Crane Co. took, he explained
that Crane Co. didn't believe its products were dangerous and he
never came across any issues relating to gaskets and packing
health hazards.

During cross examination by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, he
said Crane Co. never performed any testing or research on those
products because it didn't manufacture them and didn't believe
they were problematic.

"We didn't see a reason to because of the nature of what we did,"
Mr. Pantaleoni said.

Mr. Pantaleoni agreed that Crane Co. knew the gaskets would
eventually have to be removed, but didn't test for those
situations because the forceful removal of dry gaskets was not
performed in Crane Co.'s operations.

The efforts Crane Co. did make towards health and safety in the
factories began in the early 1900s with Dr. Andrew Harvey, who was
a leader of occupational health and safety.

Mr. Pantaleoni said Harvey set up medical programs and
rehabilitation for Crane Co. employees before a Workers'
Compensation program existed.  His efforts provided injured
employees an opportunity to continue earning a wage while
regaining health, he said.  It benefited families who depended on
the wages and Crane Co. which depended on having healthy workers,
he said.

Fast-forwarding to Mr. Pantaleoni's time, he said Crane Co.
ensures the factories meet safety regulations and laws while
remaining very clean for proper valve construction and controlling
dusty areas to prevent any asbestos exposure.

"When we were looking at our plant operations, we wanted to make
sure they were safe for all of our employees," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Continues to Defend PI Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos exposure cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been named as a "premises defendant"
in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. These
complaints generally do not provide specific information about the
amount of damages being sought, the time period in which the
alleged injuries occurred or the alleged exposures giving rise to
the asserted liability. This information, which would be central
to any estimate of probable loss, generally must be obtained
through legal discovery.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts
responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and
payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our twenty-year
experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, there were 1,073 unresolved
cases for which service has been received that we have tendered to
the indemnifying party, all of which have been accepted by the
indemnifying party.

We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of
December 31, 2013, we had an accrued liability of approximately
$10 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable
of approximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of December 31, 2013.

Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subject
to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, we may
be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of these
cases.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, there were 48 cases for
which service has been received by us. Certain prior cases that
were filed in error against us have been dismissed.

We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $45,000, $559,000 and
$584,000 during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011,
respectively. As of December 31, 2013, we had an accrual of
$356,000 relating to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of December 31, 2013."

Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company
operates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC
(Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a range
of chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to a
range of consumer and industrial customers. The Company is a
global producer in product lines, including methyl diphenyl
diisocyanate (MDI), amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer
formulations, textile chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and
titanium dioxide. The Company operates in five segments:
Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Advanced Materials, Textile
Effects and Pigments. Effective March 14, 2013, it acquired 20%
interest in Nippon Aqua Co Ltd. In August 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of the business of
Oxid L.P.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PQ Holdings Had $941,000 Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
PQ Holdings recorded a reserve of $941,000 for costs related to
asbestos removal and insulation replacement initiatives as of
September 30, 2013, according to the Company's Form S-1 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2014.

As part of the INEOS Silicas acquisition in July 2008, the Company
acquired a manufacturing facility at Warrington, United Kingdom.
Asbestos-containing building material is present at the site, and
asbestos removal and insulation replacement initiatives are
underway. As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the
Company has recorded a reserve of $941,000 and $945,000
respectively, for costs related to this program.

PQ Holdings (formerly PQ Corporation) minds its Ps and Qs when
producing industrial chemicals. It operates in three principal
segments: Performance Chemicals, Catalysts, and Specialty Glass
Materials. PQ is one of the world's largest producers of sodium
silicates (a widely used glass product made from sand). Its
Catalysts unit produces silica and zeolite-based catalysts serving
the polyethylene, polymerization, chemical synthesis, emissions
control, lube, and refining markets. The company's Specialty Glass
Materials business produces engineered glass materials for the
transportation safety, oil and gas, polymer additives, and metal
finishing markets. The Carlyle-backed company filed to go public
in 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Omega Healthcare No Recorded ARO as of Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., has not recorded any conditional
asset retirement obligations because the settlement dates to
remove the asbestos from within certain of its real estate
investment properties -- have indeterminable dates, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2013, and 2012, we had
identified conditional asset retirement obligations primarily
related to the future removal and disposal of asbestos that is
contained within certain of our real estate investment properties.
The asbestos is appropriately contained, and we believe we are
compliant with current environmental regulations.  If these
properties undergo major renovations or are demolished, certain
environmental regulations are in place, which specify the manner
in which asbestos must be handled and disposed.  We are required
to record the fair value of these conditional liabilities if they
can be reasonably estimated.  As of
December 31, 2013, and 2012, sufficient information was not
available to estimate our liability for conditional asset
retirement obligations as the obligations to remove the asbestos
from these properties have indeterminable settlement dates.  As
such, no liability for conditional asset retirement obligations
was recorded on our accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2013 and 2012."

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (Omega) is a self-administered
real estate investment trust (REIT), investing in income-producing
healthcare facilities, such as long-term care facilities located
throughout the United States. The Company provides lease or
mortgage financing to operators of skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs) and, to assisted living facilities (ALFs), independent
living facilities and rehabilitation and acute care facilities. It
finances investments through borrowings under its revolving credit
facilities, private placements or public offerings of debt or
equity securities, the assumption of secured indebtedness, or a
combination of these methods. As of December 31, 2011, its
portfolio of investments consisted of 438 healthcare facilities
located in 35 states and operated by 51 third-party operators. It
uses the term operator to refer to its tenants and mortgagees and
their affiliates who manage and/or operate its properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $409.4MM Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had total asbestos liabilities of $409.4
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components
that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were
acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by
any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries
producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured
products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally
were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries'
customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The Company states: "We have projected each subsidiary's future
asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. This methodology is based
upon risk equations, exposed population estimates, mortality
rates, and other demographic statistics. In applying the Nicholson
methodology for each subsidiary we performed: (1) an analysis of
the estimated population likely to have been exposed or claim to
have been exposed to products manufactured by the subsidiaries
based upon national studies undertaken of the population of
workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos; (2) a review of
epidemiological and demographic studies to estimate the number of
potentially exposed people that would be likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases in each year; (3) an analysis of the
subsidiaries' recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates for these diseases and (4) an analysis of the historical
asbestos liability costs to develop average values, which vary by
disease type, jurisdiction and the nature of claim, to determine
an estimate of costs likely to be associated with currently
pending and projected asbestos claims. Our projections, based upon
the Nicholson methodology, estimate both claims and the estimated
cash outflows related to the resolution of such claims for periods
up to and including the endpoint of asbestos studies. It is our
policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs
for the longest period of time that we can reasonably estimate.
Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may
be paid after the next 15 years.

Projecting future asbestos-related liability costs is subject to
numerous variables that are difficult to predict, including, among
others, the number of claims that might be received, the type and
severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the latency
period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs
of medical treatment, the financial resources of other companies
that are co-defendants in the claims, funds available in post-
bankruptcy trusts, uncertainties surrounding the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
including fluctuations in the timing of court actions and rulings,
and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial
standards, including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any
projections with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. 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 our asbestos liability, and these effects do not
move in linear fashion but rather change over multiple year
periods. Accordingly, we monitor these trend factors over time and
periodically assess whether an alternative forecast period is
appropriate. Taking these factors into account and the inherent
uncertainties, we believe that we can reasonably estimate the
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will
be resolved in the next 15 years and have recorded that liability
as our best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, we do not believe
the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss
is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been
recorded for any costs which may be paid after the next 15 years.
Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well
as costs incurred related to litigation against the subsidiaries'
insurers are expensed as incurred.

We assessed the subsidiaries' existing insurance arrangements and
agreements, estimated the applicability of insurance coverage for
existing and expected future claims, analyzed publicly available
information bearing on the current creditworthiness and solvency
of the various insurers, and employed such insurance allocation
methodologies as we believed appropriate to ascertain the probable
insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities. The analysis took
into account self-insurance retentions, policy exclusions, pending
litigation, liability caps and gaps in coverage, existing and
potential insolvencies of insurers as well as how legal and
defense costs will be covered under the insurance policies.

Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
our ownership of each independent entity. In our evaluation of the
insurance asset, we use differing insurance allocation
methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the applicable law
pertaining to the affected subsidiary.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

As of December 31, 2013, we had total asbestos liabilities,
including current portion, of $409.4 million and total asbestos
insurance assets, including current portion, of $395.3 million."

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-
handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden
and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's
products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler,
Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech,
Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has
production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers
customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer
needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V.
In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012,
Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the
Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. Effective September
29, 2013, Colfax Corp acquired CKD Kompresory as a manufacturer of
compressors, from CKD Group as.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,393 Unresolved Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 22,393 unresolved asbestos claims pending against
Colfax Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components
that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were
acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by
any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries
producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured
products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally
were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries'
customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant
has fluctuated during the past several years. The Company expects
such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among
other things, the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims
arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed
for no payment.

Unresolved claims since year ended December 31, 2013, were 22,393.

The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-
related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. It is the Company's policy
to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the
longest period of time that it can reasonably estimate.

The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims that will be
resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after
the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation
against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred.

Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
Company ownership of each independent entity. In its evaluation of
the insurance asset, the Company used differing insurance
allocation methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the
applicable law pertaining to the affected subsidiary.

For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
on October 14, 2009 that asbestos-related costs should be
allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation
(which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection
with a claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the
policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to
excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the
business. Based upon this ruling mandating an "all sums"
allocation, as well as more recent rulings by the Delaware
Superior Court concerning the subsidiary's coverage rights, the
Company currently estimates that the subsidiary's future expected
recovery percentage is 90% of asbestos-related costs with the
subsidiary expected to be responsible for approximately 10% of its
future asbestos-related costs. Certain coverage issues still
remain to be decided, and one or more parties to the coverage
action ultimately may appeal the Delaware Chancery Court's and
Superior Court's rulings. Depending on the outcome of the
remaining issues, as well as any appeal, the expected insurance
recovery percentage could change.

The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella
carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the
subsidiary for 20 years that the limits of liability of its
primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. Since
then, the subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer
insurers whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella
carrier. Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or
indemnified the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of
rights and their applicable policy limits. A trial concerning the
payment obligations of the Company's excess insurers concluded
during fourth quarter of 2012, but certain legal rulings and entry
of a final judgment are still pending. The subsidiary continues to
work with its excess insurers to obtain defense and indemnity
payments while the litigation is proceeding. Given the
uncertainties of litigation, there is a variety of possible
outcomes, including but not limited to the subsidiary being
required to fund all or a portion of the subsidiary's defense and
indemnity payments until such time a final ruling orders payment
by the insurers. While not impacting the results of operations,
the funding requirement could range up to $10 million per quarter
until final resolution. In addition, because a statistically
significant increase in mesothelioma claims had occurred and was
expected to continue to occur in certain regions, this subsidiary
recorded a $1.8 million pre-tax charge, which was comprised of an
increase in its asbestos-related liabilities of $18.1 million
partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries
of $16.3 million, during the fourth quarter of the year ended
December 31, 2011. Due to a statistically significant increase in
mesothelioma and lung cancer claims and higher settlement values
per claim that have occurred and are expected to continue to occur
in certain jurisdictions, partially offset by lower claims and
lower settlement values per claim in other jurisdictions, the
Company recorded a $0.6 million pre-tax charge during year ended
December 31, 2013, which was included in Selling, general and
administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations. The pre-tax charge was comprised of an increase in
asbestos-related liabilities of $10.8 million partially offset by
an increase in expected insurance recoveries of $10.2 million.

In 2003, another subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large number
of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of
disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims asserted against it. Although none of these insurance
companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing,
reasonableness and allocation of payments.

For this subsidiary, it was determined by court ruling in 2007
that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts
will apply. Further court rulings in December of 2009 clarified
the allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from
insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed
for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods.

In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special
master to review the appropriate information and recommend an
allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts
of the case. During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation
master made its recommendation. In May 2011, the court accepted
the recommendation with modifications. A final judgment at the
trial court level in this litigation was rendered during the year
ended December 31, 2011, but appeals have been entered. Because of
the higher settlement values per mesothelioma claim in 2011 in a
specific region, this subsidiary recorded a $0.7 million pre-tax
charge, which was comprised of an increase to its asbestos-related
liabilities of $4.7 million partially offset by an increase in
expected insurance recoveries of $4.0 million, during the fourth
quarter of the year ended December 31, 2011. The subsidiary
expects to be responsible for approximately 18% of all future
asbestos-related costs.

The Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets included a long-term
asbestos liability of 358,288,000 related to asbestos-related
litigation.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-
handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden
and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's
products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler,
Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech,
Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has
production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers
customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer
needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V.
In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012,
Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the
Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. Effective September
29, 2013, Colfax Corp acquired CKD Kompresory as a manufacturer of
compressors, from CKD Group as.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. $280-Mil. Casualty Reserves in 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation had $280 million casualty reserves representing
accruals for personal injury, occupational injury and asbestos
claims in 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 27, 2013.

Casualty reserves of $280 million in 2013 represent accruals for
personal injury, occupational injury and asbestos claims. The
Company's self-insured retention amount for these claims is $50
million per occurrence. Currently, no individual claim is expected
to exceed the Company's self-insured retention amount. In
accordance with the Contingencies Topic in the Financial
Accounting Standards Board's ("FASB") Accounting Standards
Codification ("ASC"), to the extent the value of an individual
claim exceeds the self-insured retention amount, the Company would
present the liability on a gross basis with a corresponding
receivable for insurance recoveries. These reserves fluctuate
based upon the timing of payments as well as changes in
independent third-party estimates, which are reviewed by
management. Actual results may vary from estimates due to the
number, type and severity of the injury, costs of medical
treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most of the Company's
casualty claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise noted.  Defense
and processing costs, which historically have been insignificant
and are anticipated to be insignificant in the future, are not
included in the recorded liabilities. During 2013, 2012 and 2011,
there were no significant changes in estimate recorded to adjust
casualty reserves.

CSX Corporation (CSX), together with its subsidiaries, is a
transportation supplier. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services, including traditional rail service and
the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. CSX's
operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), provides
link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately
21,000 route mile rail network, which serves centers in 23 states
east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It has access to over 70
ocean, river and lake port terminals along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence Seaway. The Company's intermodal business links customers
to railroads through trucks and terminals. CSXT also serves
production and distribution facilities through track connections
to approximately 240 short-line and regional railroads.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $50-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation recorded total liability of $50 million related to
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 27, 2013.

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss.

The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The
heaviest possible exposure for employees resulted from work
conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were largely
phased out beginning around the 1950s. Other types of exposures,
however, including exposure from locomotive component parts and
building materials, continued until these exposures were
substantially eliminated by 1985. Additionally, the Company has
retained liability for asbestos claims filed against its
previously owned international container shipping business.
Diseases associated with asbestos typically have long latency
periods (amount of time between exposure to asbestos and the onset
of the disease) which can range from 10 to 40 years after
exposure.

Occupational and asbestos claims are analyzed by a third-party
actuary or specialist (the "third-party specialist"),
respectively, in order to determine the number of unasserted or
incurred but not reported ("IBNR") claims. Occupational claims
analyses are performed by the third-party specialist quarterly and
are reviewed by management. Since exposure to asbestos has been
substantially eliminated, management reviews asserted asbestos
claims quarterly and the review by the third-party specialist is
completed annually. With the exception of carpal tunnel,
management has determined that seven years is the most probable
time period in which unasserted claim filings and claim values can
be estimated. Carpal tunnel claims use a three-year period to
estimate the reserve due to the shorter latency period for these
types of injuries.

The third party specialists analyze CSXT's historical claim
filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates to determine
future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement
values for occupational and asbestos claims reserves. The
potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSX's
employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the
third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims
liability.

As of December 2013, the Company recorded total liability of $23
million related to occupational claims; and total liability of $50
million related to asbestos claims.

During 2013 and 2012, there were no significant changes in
estimate of occupational or asbestos reserves. For the end of
fiscal year 2013, there were open 392 occupational and asbestos
claims.

CSX Corporation (CSX), together with its subsidiaries, is a
transportation supplier. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services, including traditional rail service and
the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. CSX's
operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), provides
link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately
21,000 route mile rail network, which serves centers in 23 states
east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It has access to over 70
ocean, river and lake port terminals along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence Seaway. The Company's intermodal business links customers
to railroads through trucks and terminals. CSXT also serves
production and distribution facilities through track connections
to approximately 240 short-line and regional railroads.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Had $6.7-Mil Net of Probable Recovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc., recorded $6.7 million net of probable
insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known.

Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades. A substantial majority of asbestos-
related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of
indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of
our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not
material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for
asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance;
however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for
asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors, and are
subject to policy limits, so we may have greater financial
exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the year ended
December 31, 2013, we recorded expense of $6.7 million, net of
probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-
related litigation.

We are also involved in patent litigation claims related to
products from an acquired business. The Company has
indemnification protection, with certain limitations, for these
claims. Costs related to this and all other non-asbestos matters
were not material to the results of operations for the periods
presented.

It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations in a future period."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Expended $19MM on Defense Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company reported that it has expended
approximately $19 million on defense and claim resolution in 2013,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are currently one of numerous defendants
in legal proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving
approximately 74,000 claimants at December 31, 2013 relating to
their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in
products allegedly manufactured by us or asbestos materials
present at our facilities. We manufactured, among other things,
rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through
1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials
prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors
or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working
at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial
portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a
Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in
our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on
defense and claim resolution was approximately $19 million during
2013. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were
exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from
various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma
and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and
punitive damages and other relief. For additional information on
asbestos litigation, refer to the Note to the Consolidated
Financial Statements No. 18, Commitments and Contingent
Liabilities."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
The Company operates approximately 1,300 tire and auto service
center outlets where it offered its products for retail sale and
provided automotive repair and other services. The Company
manufactures its products in 52 manufacturing facilities in 22
countries, including the United States. It operates through four
operating segments representing its regional tire businesses:
North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA);
Latin American Tire, and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Disposed 107,400 Claims in 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has disposed of approximately
107,400 claims by defending and obtaining their dismissals or by
entering into a settlement, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have recorded liabilities totaling $305
million and $298 million, including related legal fees expected to
be incurred, for potential product liability and other tort
claims, including asbestos claims, at December 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively. Of these amounts, $45 million and
$40 million were included in Other Current Liabilities at December
31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The amounts recorded
were estimated based on an assessment of potential liability using
an analysis of available information with respect to pending
claims, historical experience and, where available, recent and
current trends. Based upon that assessment, at December 31, 2013,
we do not believe that estimated reasonably possible losses
associated with general and product liability claims in excess of
the amounts recorded will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations. However,
the amount of our ultimate liability in respect of these matters
may differ from these estimates.

We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-
related personal injuries purported to result from alleged
exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or
present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits
have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal
courts. As of December 31, 2013, we have disposed of approximately
107,400 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or
by entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments to date, including legal
costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $432 million
through December 31, 2013 and $407 million through December 31,
2012.

We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $145 million and $139
million at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.
The recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the
next ten years, which represents the period over which the
liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase
in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably
estimated, and that increase could be significant. The portion of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and
related defense costs was $78 million at December 31, 2013 and $68
million at December 31, 2012. At December 31, 2013, our liability
with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was $67
million, compared to $71 million at December 31, 2012.

We maintain primary insurance coverage under coverage-in-place
agreements, and also have excess liability insurance with respect
to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal
counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our
insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations
of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine
an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $75 million
at December 31, 2013 and $73 million at December 31, 2012. We
expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim related losses
would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period
covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $11 million
was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at
December 31, 2013 and $10 million at December 31, 2012. The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers
as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from
certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

We believe that, at December 31, 2013, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis,
pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at December 31, 2013.
We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims, and the
receivable for recoveries from insurance carriers recorded in
respect of these claims, reflects reasonable and probable
estimates of these amounts, subject to the exclusion of claims for
which it is not feasible to make reasonable estimates. The
estimate of the assets and liabilities related to pending and
expected future asbestos claims and insurance recoveries is
subject to numerous uncertainties, including, but not limited to,
changes in:

* the litigation environment,

* Federal and state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants,

* recoverability of receivables due to potential insolvency of
carriers,

* our approach to defending and resolving claims, and

* the level of payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts.

As a result, with respect to both asserted and unasserted claims,
it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of
cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts
cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies
is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims
including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs.
product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products
or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of
these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
The Company operates approximately 1,300 tire and auto service
center outlets where it offered its products for retail sale and
provided automotive repair and other services. The Company
manufactures its products in 52 manufacturing facilities in 22
countries, including the United States. It operates through four
operating segments representing its regional tire businesses:
North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA);
Latin American Tire, and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Defendants Win Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that several shipbuilders were recently granted summary judgment
in an asbestos lawsuit on the basis that a Navy ship is not a
"product" for purposes of strict product liability.

Judge Eduardo C. Judge Robreno of the National Asbestos Products
Liability Multidistrict Litigation Docket of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
defendant shipbuilders' motion for summary judgment on strict
product liability, but denied their motion for summary judgment
regarding negligence claims.

Judge Judge Robreno filed a memorandum detailing his decision on
Jan. 28, followed by two separate opinions focusing on each
summary judgment request.

"Negligence law focuses on the reasonableness of defendants'
conduct, while strict liability focuses on defendants' product
without regard to conduct or fault," Judge Judge Robreno wrote.

"The court holds that, under maritime law, a builder of a Navy
ship . . . is liable in negligence if it failed to exercise
reasonable care under the circumstances," he added. "On the other
hand, defendants' motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
strict liability claims are granted because . . . a Navy ship is
not a product within the meaning of strict product liability law."

The opinion addressed defendants General Dynamics Corporation,
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated and Puget Sound Commerce Center,
Inc.'s summary judgment request.

Claimant David Filer originally filed his suit in California
before it was transferred to the MDL.  He claims he was exposed to
asbestos from insulation installed by the defendants while serving
in the U.S. Navy aboard naval ships.  He alleges they are liable
for failing to warn him of the hazards of asbestos-containing
products manufactured by others but installed by the defendants.

However, each defendant counters those arguments, claiming they
"had no duty to warn regarding the various asbestos-containing
products it installed aboard ships it built for the Navy."  The
defendants allege maritime law or California law is appropriate in
awarding summary judgment.

The court responded by ruling out state laws due to the location
of the litigation and instead focused on maritime law.

"In order for maritime law to apply, a plaintiff's exposure
underlying a product liability claim must meet both a locality
test and a connection test," Judge Robreno wrote.

The locality test requires that asbestos exposure or injury occur
on navigable waters, which means work must be performed aboard a
ship that is docked at a shipyard or takes place on dry dock.  The
connection test is valid when a worker whose claims meet the
locality test was primarily sea-based during the asbestos
exposure.

Judge Robreno stated that because there is no controlling statute
that applies here regarding the connection test, the court had to
locate an answer within maritime common law.

"Before the court is the issue whether, under maritime law, a
builder of Navy ships is liable under a negligence theory for
asbestos-related injuries arising from products it installed
aboard a ship," he wrote.

The defendants allege the "sophisticated user" defense bars them
from liability, and instead passes the torch to the manufacturer.
Under the "sophisticated user" defense, the manufacturer or
supplier of a product has the burden of demonstrating that either
the purchaser of a product or the individual using the product was
"sophisticated" about the hazards of the product, which relieves
the manufacturer of liability for injury arising from the product.

According to maritime law, a "sophisticated user" defense serves
to bar negligent failure-to-warn claims, but not strict liability
claims.

The court explained that strict liability focuses on the product
without regard to conduct or fault and that the duty to warn
doesn't depend on a user's knowledge or sophistication, while the
negligence law focuses on the reasonableness of the defendants'
conduct.

"As part of its analysis in reaching this decision, the court
determined that the role of the builder of Navy ships was more
like a provider or a service (assembly of an assortment of
products) than a manufacturer or supplier of a product," Judge
Robreno wrote.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the manufacturers of the
asbestos-containing products bear the burden of preventing harm to
the workers.

"The court explained that, as a matter of policy, to impose upon a
Navy shipbuilder potential strict liability for each of the
thousands of products assembled in a Navy ship pursuant to Navy
specifications, would be an undue, unmanageable, and cumulative
burden likely to discourage the activity of shipbuilding," Judge
Robreno stated.

The defendants claim it is unclear whether a Navy shipbuilder has
a duty to warn of asbestos hazards to those who work aboard the
ships it builds.

However, the plaintiff claims the issue is whether the defendants'
failure to warn constitutes common law negligence or a breach of
duty. Filer further argues any warnings that were present were
obscured during the installation process with paint and other
carpentry.

Judge Robreno clarified the argument, stating that shipbuilders
may still hold some responsibility.

"It is true that the court found that a Navy shipbuilder is not a
'manufacturer' or 'supplier' of a product with respect to the ship
as a whole for purposes of strict product liability law," Judge
Robreno stated. "However, the court holds now that it is a
different inquiry whether, for purposes of negligence law, a Navy
shipbuilder is a 'supplier of the various products installed
aboard the ship.'"

Nevertheless, the defendants responded by saying they had reason
to believe that the Navy knew of the risks surrounding asbestos
when they commissioned the ships.

"The court has already recognized that the sophisticated user
defense and the government contractor defense insulate defendants
from liability under certain circumstances," Judge Robreno wrote.

The court ruled that it is true that the defendants had reason to
believe the Navy was aware of the dangers of asbestos-containing
products; however, they "conflate the issue of duty with whether
they are excused from any breach of their duty to exercise
reasonable care under the circumstances."

"It is whether defendants breached that duty which is at issue
here, and not the existence of a duty," Judge Robreno continued.

The defendants further point out the inconsistency with the "bare
metal defense," which pertains to cases in which products and
component parts are incorporated into each other or designed to be
used in combination with each other.

Because a ship is not a product, the various products installed
therein are not component parts of the ship; and they are not
products designed to be used in connection with each other.

Ultimately, the court determined that the defendants have not
identified any authority indicating that they are relieved from
negligence liability under maritime law, nor did they behave
reasonably with respect to providing warnings regarding the
various toxic materials on board the ships.

"Therefore, the court declines to adopt the sweeping proposition
set forth by defendants that builders of Navy ships can never face
negligence liability under any circumstances and are instead
immune from all liability surrounding all of their activities,"
Judge Robreno wrote. "Rather, applying the general rule of law,
defendants owed plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care under the
circumstances."

The court concluded that their ruling is reasonable and consistent
with prior decisions.

"Where a Navy shipbuilder has behaved reasonably under the
circumstances, it will not incur negligence liability; and where
it has not behaved reasonably under the circumstances, negligence
liabilities not unwarranted," Judge Robreno stated.

"The court concludes that, under maritime law, a builder of a Navy
ship is liable in negligence if it failed to exercise reasonable
care under the circumstances and that such failure caused injury
to the plaintiff -- and that this is true regardless of the fact
that a Navy shipbuilder cannot be liable under a theory of strict
liability due to the fact that a Navy ship is not a 'product' for
purposes of strict product liability," Judge Robreno added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utility Work Delays Fibro Removal at Village Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Kiste Nyberg, writing for The Alternative Press, reported that
issues with utilities delayed the start of asbestos abatement for
renovations at the Village Hall, in South Orange, New Jersey, but
work should get underway by the end of the month, according to the
construction management firm.

Mitchell Fritz, the project manager with J. Shapiro and
Associates, gave an update on the village hall project at a board
of Trustees meeting. The projected completion date for the project
is December 2015.  He said the net number of days lost between
Nov. 25, the original target date for starting the work, and Feb.
25, the new date, show up as the difference in "completing in
October and completing in December," he said.

"There were a number of items that precluded an aggressive start
to the (asbestos abatement) work," Fritz said.

Although the contract was awarded Sept. 23 and village offices
opened in their new location on Oct. 7, the contractor had
"administrative activities," including permits, that he had to
take care of, Fritz said. In addition, items left behind in the
move to temporary quarters needed to be removed, and the water,
heating system and natural gas service had to be shut down.

However, according to Fritz, the biggest roadblock was the need to
turn off the existing underground electrical and arrange for
temporary electrical service in the building, which had to be
coordinated with Public Service Gas and Electric.

"That why you don't see a lot going on over at Village Hall," he
said.

"We're projecting the temporary service can be turned on by Feb.
24," Fritz said. "If that happens, the contractor can start work
the next day." Under the contract, the company has 60 days to
complete the work.

The village is moving forward with the bid process for the
rehabilitation work. Fritz said about 15 companies have requested
materials for the "pre-qualification" process, which would
generate "a qualified field or roster of contractors that would
offer price proposals," he said.

Fritz said that the completion date has been pushed back two
months from the October 2015 projection. "When we look at the
whole timeline, the slippage hasn't been that great," he said. "It
just feels a little longer."

Village Administrator Barry Lewis Jr. said that "we're committed
to keeping it on a tight schedule." He added that it will not be
possible to accurately estimate the renovation budget until the
contractor is hired. "Until you get the bid, the largest piece is
the puzzle is outstanding."

The total cost of the renovation has been estimated at roughly
$6.5 million, Lewis said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Gets Jail Time for Wrong Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sun Chronicle reported that a heating contractor based in
Plainville, Massachusetts, has pleaded guilty and been sentenced
to jail in connection with the improper removal of asbestos in a
single-family rental property in Medway and for witness
intimidation, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced.

Nicholas Pasquantonio, 43, of Wrentham, pleaded guilty in Norfolk
Superior Court to two counts of violating the Massachusetts Clean
Air Act for failure to follow required procedures for the removal
of asbestos and failure to file a notice of asbestos removal with
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP), and one count of witness intimidation.

After the plea was entered, Judge Thomas Connors sentenced
Pasquantonio to one year in the House of Correction, with six
months to serve and the balance suspended for a period of three
years, during which he will be on probation. Judge Connors also
ordered Pasquantonio to pay a $2,500 fine and to have no contact
with the victims in the case.

"This defendant put the public's safety at risk by violating the
guidelines for reporting and removing asbestos, an extremely
hazardous toxin," Coakley said. "Further, this defendant attempted
to tamper with the integrity of our criminal justice system by
intimidating potential witnesses."

"Plumbing and heating contractors are well aware that asbestos
must be properly removed by trained and licensed asbestos
contractors," MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell said. "Improper
asbestos removal work that exposes workers, tenants and the
general public to a known carcinogen is unacceptable and will not
be tolerated."

In December 2010, Pasquantonio, who was not a licensed asbestos
contractor, was hired by a local landlord to replace the boiler in
a Medway property occupied by a family with several children.
Despite having knowledge that the job would involve asbestos,
Pasquantonio did not follow the required safety procedures in
removing the asbestos from pipes on the heating system, including,
but not limited to, sealing off the work area. After being
notified by the Medway Board of Health of a possible unlawful
asbestos abatement, MassDEP inspected the site and found the
improper removal and release of asbestos.

Pasquantonio also failed to notify MassDEP that he would be
disturbing asbestos when replacing the boiler and did not follow
the appropriate procedures to prevent asbestos emissions,
according to Coakley. The Department of Labor Standards requires
that the removal of asbestos be performed by a licensed
contractor, and pursuant to MassDEP regulations, contractors must
provide notification of when the removal will occur and follow
certain methods and standards for the safe removal, storage, and
disposal of the asbestos throughout the abatement process.

Further, when Pasquantonio became aware he might be charged
criminally, he went to the property where the illegal asbestos
removal had occurred and intimidated two potential witnesses in
the case not to testify against him.

These charges stem from an investigation by the Massachusetts
Environmental Strike Force, an interagency unit which is overseen
by Coakley, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rick
Sullivan and MassDEP Commissioner Kimmell. The Strike Force
comprises prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office,
Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's
Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP who
investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state's
water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human
health.

A Norfolk County Grand Jury returned indictments against
Pasquantonio in January 2012. The defendant was arraigned in
Norfolk Superior Court in March 2012. He pleaded guilty and was
sentenced.

The case was handled by Assistant Attorney General Daniel Licata,
with assistance from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Rainer,
chief of Coakley's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, officers of
the Massachusetts Environmental Police and Gregory Levins of the
Central Regional Office of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids Sought to Remove Fibro From Middle School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wind, writing for Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, reported
that the days are numbered in Logan Middle School, in Waterloo,
Iowa, as officials begin planning for its demolition.

The Board of Education held a public hearing on plans to remove
asbestos from the building as mandated under Iowa Code before it
is torn down. The board also approved seeking bids for the
project. The building at 1515 Logan Ave. has been vacant since
2009, when it was replaced by the adjacent George Washington
Carver Academy.

Board member Lyle Schmitt requested that Waterloo Community
Schools "establish timelines favorable to contractors" for the
costly asbestos removal and "cast a wide net" in seeking bids for
the project.

"Anything we can do to minimize the cost," he said. "It seems like
we get so little for so much money."

Public hearings are required for projects like this where the cost
is going to exceed $100,000. No exact estimate is available for
the asbestos removal, but Superintendent Gary Norris said a
building the size of Logan could cost $700,000 to $850,000 for
asbestos removal and demolition. "Sometimes with asbestos removal,
there's unforeseen costs," he noted, that could inflate the
expense.

Board member Sue Flynn asked if the district could get more
favorable rates by bidding multiple asbestos removal projects at
the same time. Norris promised to look into that along with
Schmitt's concerns.

Board member Shanlee McNally agreed that asbestos removal costs
often seem high but said the action speaks to a promise not to
leave unused buildings sitting empty. "I'm happy that we're moving
the process along," she said.

Asbestos removal was already approved for the old Irving
Elementary School, which Norris said will be torn down "this
spring, as soon as possible." Logan will be razed this summer or
fall. He said the board will deal with the former Edison and
Orange elementary schools next year.

Norris suggested the Irving land will be sold and developed into
housing. Logan, however, "will likely remain as green space." The
district would continue owning the land, which abuts U.S. Highway
63.

In addition, a former gas station convenience store on U.S. 63
south of Carver's entrance purchased by the district more than two
years ago will be torn down. The company that reconstructed the
highway is demolishing the building in exchange for using it as an
office during the road work. "That's the first step of us trying
to improve the entrance," said Norris.

Concerning other empty district buildings, he said a water
retention project being done by the city of Waterloo on part of
the Devonshire School property is causing officials to wait on any
action there. The district is still interested in finding a reuse
for the building. The property also includes lots where homes
could be built.

No decision have been made yet on the former Castle Hill and
Longfellow school buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Hit Pub in Colliers Wood Closes Down
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louisa Clarence-Smith, writing for Your Local Guardian, reported
that the Provenance pub in Colliers Wood, London, England, is
closing less than a year after it opened.

Antic Pubs took over the High Street pub last May but said owner,
Punch Taverns, is selling the property after asbestos, broken
glass, fencing and detergents were found in the garden.

Damian McFadden, a fund manager who lives close to the pub, said:
"The local community is just starting to gather a bit of steam so
it is sad to see the pub closing."

Peter Lord, Colliers Wood resident and Conservative candidate for
the ward, said: "I'm a bit shocked at what's happening. I think
residents should have a say on it. I would absolutely support a
campaign to keep our local pub."

Antic would not say when the pub was closing or how many staff
will lose their jobs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Company Paying $125K in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cohen, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $125,000
settlement with an Essex-based demolition company to resolve
allegations it mishandled asbestos while demolishing a Worcester
building.

Coakley filed a complaint against McConnell Enterprises Inc.
alleging the company uncovered piping wrapped with asbestos
insulation during a demolition project in 2011 and left it hanging
three stories above the ground. Exposed asbestos insulation could
have put workers and others in the area at risk of contact with
the harmful fibers for an extended period of time.

"Our office takes the mishandling of asbestos very seriously
because of the health effects," Coakley said. "Companies working
with asbestos-containing materials must be held to the highest
standards of care as ordered under our state air laws and
regulations."

The lawsuit further alleges that when McConnell removed the pipes
and other asbestos-containing materials, it failed to properly
handle and store it, leaving it in unmarked plastic bags in a
nearby building. McConnell also allegedly failed to follow proper
notification procedures with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection.

Under the terms of the settlement, McConnell must pay $82,500 in
civil penalties to the state and an additional $42,500 in civil
penalties if it fails to conform to waste regulations during the
next 18 months.

Airborne asbestos taken into the lungs by breathing can cause
serious diseases, including lung cancer, asbestosis and
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Radiation-Induced Mesothelioma Cases Seen to Rise
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that occupational
exposure to asbestos remains the number one cause of mesothelioma,
but recent study shows that the face of malignant pleural
mesothelioma was changing as other causes are emerging.

"The general thinking is that these non-asbestos related cases
will increase as we move forward," said James Stevenson, M.D., a
mesothelioma specialist who brought his expertise to Cleveland in
2012 from the Abramson Cancer Center in Philadelphia. "We all
sense there are going to be more of these, even if the hard
numbers don't show it yet."

         Mesothelioma Patients with No Asbestos Exposure

Stevenson recently treated two women in their mid-50s, both
nonsmokers who had worked in offices with no known asbestos
problems. Neither woman was aware of any asbestos in their homes,
the homes where they grew up or about any secondhand exposure from
parents who could have inadvertently brought asbestos home.

"They had no reason to even think they were ever exposed,"
Stevenson said.

All were stunned by a diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma specialists across the country often talk about the
changing demographics of their patients: They are younger, the
percentage of female patients is rising and there are more who
discover that secondhand exposure to asbestos  -- not a job site
-- caused their cancer.

The typical mesothelioma patient is retirement age or older, and
the overwhelming majority of them are men. Many of the men -- 25
to 30 percent -- served in the military. Their exposures occurred
during the service before the 1980s, and much of it was connected
to the U.S. Navy.

           Radiation for Lymphoma Caused Mesothelioma

Today, the medical community is also finding that patients have a
history of radiation therapy used for Hodgkin lymphoma and non-
Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system that often
strikes at a young age. Advances in treatment of this cancer give
patients a chance at a full recovery. Unfortunately, radiation
also may be causing other future serious problems.

A study done by researchers at Brigham & Women's Hospital in
Boston and published recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
provided a strong link between earlier chest radiation for
lymphoma and later development of pleural mesothelioma.

Researchers examined 1,618 consecutive mesothelioma patients over
a 15-year span and identified 22 of them who had undergone earlier
radiation therapy for lymphoma. They evaluated the histology in
the resection samples of those 22 and found the asbestos body
count to be closer to the unexposed control group and less like
those of the asbestos-confirmed group.

For the control group, an additional 15 samples from lung
specimens from separate patients without a history of pleural
mesothelioma or lymphoma were used.

"Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma have a 20-fold increased risk of
mesothelioma after radiotherapy," the research group wrote in its
findings. "Although the majority of cases of PDMM (pleural diffuse
malignant mesothelioma) are attributed to asbestos, other causes
have been identified . . . "

What they also found in the study was that mesothelioma patients
with a history of radiation therapy were younger than patients
with asbestos-related disease (45 years old vs. 65) and had a
longer overall survival period (32.5 months vs. 12.7 months).

The latency period between exposure (to either radiation or
asbestos) and diagnosis of mesothelioma was shorter (21 years) for
those who had lymphoma than those who did not.

          Radiation Produces Risk for Second Malignancy

Researchers pointed out the patients with a history of radiation
therapy for lymphoma -- with or without chemotherapy -- have an
increased risk of developing multiple malignancies. They believe
the highest risk for a second malignancies included mesothelioma,
sarcomas of soft tissue and bone, stomach, breast and thyroid
cancers.

Although he was not part of the study, Stevenson believes there's
a need for greater awareness of the problem of second malignancies
for patients who undergo radiation therapy.

"It's not that people who undergo chest radiation are all at high
risk, but there are risks for treatment-induced malignancies," he
said. "It's tough for a patient to understand how they could have
this cancer that is caused by asbestos when they have no reason to
think they were even exposed to it. I think we now understand it a
little better."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The project is expected to be completed in August 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Trust Fined for Potential Fibro Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&V News 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, in Northumberland, England, have been fined
after staff and residents were put at risk of exposure to
asbestos.

West Yorkshire firm Express Elevators, of Otley Road, Baildon,
Shipley, West Yorkshire, was contracted by Anchor Trust, of
Bedford Street, London, to replace the lift at St Paul's Court
sheltered housing scheme in November 2012.

PC Lifts, of St John Street, London, was subcontracted to remove
the existing lift ahead of the new one being installed.  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) told Bedlington Magistrates'
Court 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 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 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 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 was fined GBP8,000 with GBP827.30 costs after
pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 13(2) of the same
legislation.  PC Lifts 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: Hawaii Ct. Awards Summary Judgment to Viad, Maxim
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Hawaii federal court has
awarded summary judgment to several more defendants named in an
asbestos action, in part finding that "general, conclusory
statements regarding replacement parts" do not raise a fact
question as to whether a defendant actually supplied asbestos-
containing replacement parts.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii's Feb. 7 order
follows reasoning outlined in a Nov. 2013 order in which the court
found some of the defendants named in the asbestos action could
not be held liable for replacement products they did not
manufacture or supply.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issue Complicates Gym-Floor Replacement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Baker, writing for The Advertiser News, reported that the
school district in Hamburg, New Jersey, ran into a roadblock in
its gym-floor replacement project at Hamburg Elementary School.

Core samples drilled from the hard-rubber floor revealed an
asbestos-based adhesive, councilman John Burd said at the Feb. 5
Hamburg Borough Council meeting.

Chief School Administrator Roger Jinks Jr. said the Board of
Education was prepared for this type of setback.

"In any construction project with an older building, you kind of
anticipate things going out of the ordinary."

The gym was built in 1935 and had its floor replaced with a hard
rubber surface in the early 1970s, Jinks said.

"We've gotten a lot of great use out of it," Jinks said. "However,
there are some concerns. The seams are separating, which can
become a tripping hazard."

Individual repairs have been made to ensure the students' safety,
but the school board voted in December to replace the floor as a
more permanent solution.

As the project was slated for the summer of 2014 the findings
won't affect the regular school year, but summer school might have
to be pushed a few weeks back to allow for remediation efforts.

"We cannot have any children in the building during asbestos
abatement," Jinks said.

The Board of Education is looking to replace the current covering
with a more traditional hardwood floor, which was originally
estimated to cost between $100,000 and $150,000. Now the project
has to be broken into two separate portions -- removal and
installation -- which will carry two separate costs.

While Jinks said it would be too hard to give a cost estimate at
this point, he assured the budget for the project included
"adequate funding for these sorts of issues."

When the project is complete, Hamburg residents can look forward
to a gym floor that will long outlive the current administration.

"Look at Franklin's gym," Jinks said. "Those hardwood floors are
nearly 60 years old and are still in beautiful condition."

The district is expected to solicit bids for the project in late
March or early April.  Bids are expected to be put out for the
projects in late March or
early April.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Firm Cited by EPA for Fibro Handling
----------------------------------------------------------
David E. Malloy, writing for The Herald-Dispatch, reported that
Biomass, a South Point, Ohio, company, has been cited by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency for the shoddy handling of
asbestos at one of its buildings and could face fines of up to
$25,000 per day. Meanwhile, county officials filed a foreclosure
action against the company to seek more than $40,000 in back taxes
the company owes.

The state agency ordered the owners of the former South Point
Ethanol plant not to demolish any more buildings at the site, to
hire a licensed asbestos abatement contractor and for the asbestos
found at the site to be removed and disposed of at a licensed
landfill no later than June 1.

Brenda Neville, a Chesapeake lawyer, has been hired as an
assistant Lawrence County prosecutor primarily to handle unpaid
taxes, according to Prosecuting Attorney Brigham Anderson. Neville
has served as special prosecutor, primarily in criminal cases,
when there was a conflict. She has served in that capacity for the
past 17 years.

Neville started working Jan. 1. Her first suits involved a
foreclosure action against Biomass, also called South Point
Biomass Generating, in the South Point area. The company has owned
the former South Point Ethanol property for more than a dozen
years.

It's not the first time the company had to be prompted to pay
county taxes, said County Treasurer Stephen Dale Burcham. The
company owes more than $40,000 in back taxes for 2011 and 2012,
according to court filings.

"We're taking a more aggressive role to collecting back taxes,"
Anderson said. "Brenda is an excellent lawyer. Her sole
responsibility will be the collection and enforcement of taxes.
She has served as a special prosecutor for the office for a number
of years."

"Most people pay their taxes on time," Anderson said. "In some
cases, they do it even when it's a hardship. Corporations should
have to pay their taxes like everyone else."

"These tax cases are really important," Neville said. "The county
needs the money."

The foreclosure action seeks to recover $40,847.55 in back taxes.

"I'm very pleased there will be someone dedicated to assisting our
office in the collection of taxes," Burcham said. "Seventy percent
of that money will go to South Point schools."

Biomass principals proposed building a wood-waste burning facility
to generate electricity at the South Point Ethanol site. However,
the project has never gone forward.

Craig W. Butler, interim director of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, said in his eight-page order that Biomass
officials haven responded to a notice of violation issued by the
Portsmouth Local Air Agency last Oct. 24.

During inspections last fall, the local agency determined that the
company wasn't properly handling materials containing asbestos and
was dumping the potential cancer-causing materials in an open-air
container. Several people, including South Point Mayor Ron West
reported to the agency about the company's handling of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Questions Asked Over Dumping of Toxic Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voxy.co.nz reported that New Zealand First is calling on
Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee to deny that toxic
asbestos waste is being transported from quake-hit Christchurch to
Southland, or that it soon will be.

"Can the Minister deny that there is a proposal to cart asbestos-
contaminated material to a substandard landfill?," asks
spokesperson for Christchurch Earthquake Issues Denis O'Rourke.

"Can the Minister reassure New Zealanders that all asbestos-
containing materials will be permanently dumped in a properly
built and designated facility and put an end to the rumours that
are circulating?

"Can the Minister confirm that material containing asbestos will
not be transported in containers, trucks or wagons that have not
been specifically built for the purpose?

"Authorities warn that there is a health risk associated with
asbestos if it is exposed or damaged. Breathing in fibres can lead
to breathing difficulties and even lung cancer. If asbestos is
left undisturbed it is considered safe.

"That's why there are guidelines for safe work practices and
transportation.

"Christchurch has a purpose built, multi-million dollar landfill
at Kate Valley with trucks specially designed to carry waste to
the site north of Christchurch.

"There is no need to be shopping around for a cut-price deal to
get rid of the Christchurch stockpiles.

"There is no need to even consider transporting asbestos-
contaminated materials in unsuitable containers to an inferior
facility.

"With the demolition of an unprecedented number of buildings
containing asbestos in Christchurch, safety is of paramount
importance.

"New Zealand First calls on the Minister to provide reassurances
to the people of Canterbury, Southland and places in between on
the handling, transporting and dumping of asbestos-contaminated
material," says Mr O'Rourke.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Aids U.S. Navy Veterans Exposed to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "We want to return to our
roots of educating Veterans exposed to asbestos during their time
serving in the US Navy, who have now been diagnosed with
mesothelioma. The one thing that separates us from any other group
or organization offering services to diagnosed victims of
mesothelioma, or their family members, is our commitment to making
certain everyone gets connected to one the nation's most skilled
mesothelioma attorneys. There is a direct correlation between the
best possible compensation for this rare form of cancer, and
having a highest quality mesothelioma attorney who only
specializes in mesothelioma compensation claims nationwide. For
more information US Navy Veterans who have been diagnosed with
mesothelioma are urged to contact the Mesothelioma Victims Center
at 866-714-6466. http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "In our first encounter with
a US Navy Veteran who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma, the
individual was exposed to asbestos while working in a US Navy
destroyer's engine room in the 1960s. In this instance rather than
ending up with one of the nation's top mesothelioma lawyers, he
ended up with a mesothelioma middleman marketing law firm. As we
would like to explain with one call to 866-714-6466, frequently US
Navy Veterans learned a skill or a trade in the US Navy that might
have led to a possible exposure to asbestos, and then continued on
in that line of work in their civilian life, while unknowingly
running the risk of a possible second exposure to asbestos. This
is why it is so incredibly vital a diagnosed victim has the best
of the best mesothelioma attorney working on their behalf, because
in the end it's the competency and experience of the attorney that
dictates mesothelioma compensation, and we only suggest the
nation's most skilled mesothelioma compensation attorneys."
http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

Information About Mesothelioma For Diagnosed Victims And Their
Families From The Mesothelioma Victims Center:

The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years
old. Victims of mesothelioma are frequently misdiagnosed with
pneumonia. This year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be
diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is 100% attributable to
exposure to asbestos.

One-third of diagnosed victims of mesothelioma served in the US
Navy. Other high-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos
include: shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, manufacturing
workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, or
construction workers. Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred
in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.

The states with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include:
Pennsylvania, Maine, New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Wyoming,
and Washington. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma
Victims Center receives diagnosed victims could be in any state
including: California, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri,
Ohio,  Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, New
Mexico, Arizona Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "If you call us at 866-714-
6466, we will see to it that you have instant access to the
nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys who consistently get
the best compensation results for their clients."
http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, please visit the US
Centers For Disease Control's web site:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Enforcement Center to Undergo Fibro Survey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rash, writing for Graham Leader, reported that the Young
County Commissioners Court accepted a bid from ERI (Environmental
Remedies Inc.) to survey the old law enforcement center on the
Graham Square, Texas, for asbestos.

The decision was made due to state requirements mandating that the
building be checked for any hazardous chemicals that could be
mixed into the air during demolition.   Asked whether it was a
coincidence, or something that Matrix Demolition would have done
as part of their demolition contract with Young County prior to
the commissioners court voting to seek competitive bidding for the
demolition job, Commissioner Jimmy Wiley said he believed Matrix
was required to look into the issue, but that formal procedure to
survey the building must still take place under state law.

County Commissioner Mike Sipes said that the next step after the
asbestos search, as he expects, should be the opening of bids and
the writing of a contract for the demolition job of the old law
enforcement center. Sipes said that though companies other than
Matrix have recently expressed interest in contracting with Young
County for the demolition, there has not been an official search
for bids yet. Should asbestos be found, however, Sipes said that
an abatement must be performed prior to demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Supreme Court Flips Decision in Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that justices of the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that defendants
in an asbestos lawsuit should not be granted summary judgment on
the grounds that the claim was made within the statute of
limitations, reversing a superior court's decision.

Justices Randy J. Holland, Carolyn Berger and Henry duPont Ridgely
filed the opinion reversing the lower court's decision on Feb. 7.

According to the opinion, delivered by Justice Holland, plaintiffs
Marlene and Paul DaBaldo, Jr. filed their lawsuit in 2009 against
19 defendants, including URS Energy & Construction and Crane Co.,
the two specific defendants addressed in the opinion.

URS and Crane Co. moved for summary judgment arguing that the
claimants' allegations were barred under Delaware's two-year
statute of limitations code for personal injury claims. The
Superior Court agreed, granting summary judgment.

Paul DaBaldo alleges in his lawsuit that he developed pulmonary
asbestosis after working at the Getty Tidewater Oil Refinery in
Delaware from 1967 until 2001.

DaBaldo's war with asbestos-related diseases began in 1992 when he
received a chest x-ray revealing "bilateral calcified pleural
plaques suspicious for asbestosis exposure."  He underwent a CT
Scan of his chest shortly after in October 1992, which found
"multiple short segments of calcified or non-calcified pleural
plaques."

DaBaldo further underwent a series of pulmonary functions tests in
December 1992, which indicated normal lung functioning and failed
to mention any disease.

DaBaldo continued visiting his primary care physician periodically
until he had another chest x-ray in 1999, which indicated a "known
history of asbestosis" and "multipled, calcified pleural plaques
which were suggestive of asbestosis."

"The Superior Court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment after concluding that 'it is very clear from the record,
from at least 1992 and -- well, perhaps as early as 1992, and
certainly no later than 1999, that the plaintiff knew that he had
asbestosis, or, at a minimum, was on inquiry notice as to whether
he had asbestosis,'" Holland wrote.

"An examination of the record reflects that the evidence does not
support the Superior Court's ruling," he added.

Follow up chest x-rays in 2001 and 2005 revealed consistent
findings with asbestos-related pleural disease and no other
significant changes.

In 2007, DaBaldo contacted the law firm of Jacobs and Cumplar in
Wilmington, Del., which referred him to Dr. Orn Eliasson.

Eliasson conducted a complete history and physical exam, listing
asbestosis as the diagnosis with extensive bilateral interstitial
fibrosis and bilateral calcified pleural plaques caused by his
asbestos exposure.

DaBaldo filed his lawsuit on May 5, 2009

"Importantly, mere exposure to asbestos combined with symptoms
that resemble an asbestos-related disease, without a definitive
medical diagnosis, is not enough to charge the plaintiff with
knowledge," Holland wrote.

The defendants argue that the claimant's testimony and medical
records verify that he was aware of an asbestos-related disease as
early as 1992, which only gave him until 1994 to appropriately
bring a claim against the defendants.

DaBaldo understood his time parameters for the pleural disease,
which is why the only issue before this court is when he became
aware of his asbestosis diagnosis, Justice Holland states.

"The two-year statute of limitations on asbestos-related personal
injury claims 'begins to run when the plaintiff is chargeable with
knowledge that his condition is attributable to asbestos
exposure,'" he wrote.

DaBaldo contends that the bench ruling was based on "disease
confusion."

Delaware is a multi-disease jurisdiction, meaning each distinct
disease caused by asbestos exposure is subject to its own claim,
as well as its own statute of limitations.

Put simply, each of the various asbestos-related diseases is
recognized as a separate and distinct disease.

"Accordingly, DaBaldo's claim based on the pleural disease
diagnosis is separate from his claim based on the asbestosis
diagnosis for the purposes of the statute of limitations in this
case," Justice Holland wrote.

Therefore, DaBaldo clarifies that his claims should not be time-
barred because he was only diagnosed with pleural disease in 1992
and was unaware of his asbestosis until 2007, separating the two
cases.

However, the defense argues the 'disease confusion' theory was not
fairly presented to the Superior Court, barring it.

The Supreme Court issued a four-factor test to determine when
statute of limitations begins: the plaintiff's level of knowledge
and education, the extent of his recourse to medical evaluation,
the consistency of the medical diagnosis and DaBaldo's follow-up
efforts during the period of latency following initial recourse to
medical evaluation.

For the first test, Justice Holland stated that no evidence on
record suggests that the claimant's level of knowledge or
education was above average, especially with regards to asbestos
or asbestos-related diseases.

Secondly, DaBaldo sought medical attention and abided by his
physician's suggestions. He also made sure to undergo regular
follow-up x-rays.

DaBaldo's diagnoses were "largely consistent" as he maintained
steady follow-ups, satisfying the third and fourth tests.

"The use of the word 'asbestosis' in the 1999 x-ray report was
emphasized by the defendant URS during summary judgment hearings
and found to be significant by the superior court," Justice
Holland stated. "However, there is no indication that this was
ever reported to DaBaldo nor was there an actual diagnosis that
DaBaldo has asbestosis."

The four-factor test solidified the Supreme Court's decision to
reverse the lower court's summary judgment ruling.

"Our analysis of the four factors demonstrates that the statute of
limitations on DaBaldo's asbestosis claim did not begin to run
until July 2007, when DaBaldo learned for the first time of his
asbestosis. Therefore, his complaint was timely when it was filed
on May 5, 2009," Justice Holland wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recycling Companies Settle Violation Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cohen, writing for Legal Newsline, reported Massachusetts
Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $125,000 agreement
with two recycling companies that allegedly filled and excavated
protected wetlands.

Allied Recycling Center Inc. and Recycling Walpole LLC also
allegedly engaged in the improper storage of solid and hazardous
waste materials at a scrapyard in Walpole. Coakley alleged the
companies began illegally filling and altering wetland areas at
and around their 17-acre property since as early as 1988.

Coakley also alleged the defendants failed to report releases of
oil to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
and failed to properly dispose of asbestos-containing materials.

"Wetlands serve important environmental functions and those who
damage or destroy these valuable resources will be held
accountable," Coakley said. "We are pleased that this settlement
will ensure wetlands restoration and the cleanup of hazardous
waste materials dumped on the property."

Under the terms of a consent judgment, Allied Recycling Center and
Recycling Walpole must pay a $125,000 civil penalty and restore
approximately an acre-and-a-half of bordering vegetated wetlands
and 176 linear feet of a stream. The companies must also assess
the historic and recent solid waste at the site, design and
implement a closure plan, assess the site for asbestos-containing
waste and correct any handling, reporting or storage violations of
oil or hazardous waste materials at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engineers Examine GGAA Due to Fibro Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Anderson, writing for Independent.ie, reported that
engineers are surveying damage at Nowlan Park, in Ireland -- the
home of Kilkenny hurling -- after a severe storm which is said to
be the worst in over 50 years.

O'Loughlin road where the stadium is situated and surrounding
areas are strewn with chunks of hazardous asbestos that blew off
the roof of an old stand.  Two houses nearby had windows broken by
flying pieces, while the roof of another house was damaged.  Many
elderly people in the area have now been taken out of their homes
by relatives while the clean up operation gets underway.

Kitty Guider (93) was lucky to escape injury when a large piece of
asbestos blew through her bedroom window, shattered both panes of
the double-glazed glass.  Downstairs in the kitchen with her
daughter at the time, Kitty was nevertheless very shaken by the
incident.  Her daughter, Breda said that if her elderly mother had
been near the window at the time, she could have easily been
killed.

Chairman of Kilkenny GAA, Ned Quinn said they never thought
Kilkenny would have taken the brunt of the storm as it had been
predicted to hit the South East of the country.

"We're worried about the next storm forecast but we don't think it
could be as bad as this," he said.

Kilkenny hurlers will take on Tipperary at Nowlan Park but Mr
Quinn says the match will not be affected by the ruined stand as
large crowds are not predicted.

Meanwhile the clean-up operation is continuing on back roads
throughout Kilkenny, with many still blocked by fallen trees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Transparency Needed Between Trusts & Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reported that a recent ruling by a bankruptcy judge that
exposed "double dipping" from a trust and a court has a local
attorney calling for more transparency between the two systems set
up to compensate people sickened by asbestos.

"The real issue for me is whether the courts will require
claimants to file trust forms before trial," said Brian Huelsmann
of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville. "What defendants are looking for
is more transparency with trust filings."

Huelsmann was reacting to a decision out of the Western District
of North Carolina, in which U.S. District Judge George Hodges
found a "startling pattern of misrepresentation" by plaintiffs'
attorneys in manipulating evidence of exposure as it pursued
Garlock Sealing Technologies, first in court and then in
bankruptcy proceedings.

Plaintiffs wanted to settle Garlock's liability in bankruptcy for
up to $1.3 billion; Garlock valued its liability at $125 million.
Hodges found Garlock's figure to be a reliable estimation.

Huelsmann said efforts to combat manipulation in asbestos cases
should remain focused on breaking plaintiffs' habit of filing
bankruptcy claims after trial. That, he said, is the real threat
to transparency in asbestos litigation.

By failing to develop trust claim filing requirements, plaintiffs
can introduce different exposure theories in court and then in
bankruptcy proceedings, he said.

In Garlock's case, Judge Hodges allowed Garlock to initiate full
discovery into the claims of 15 individuals and partial discovery
into hundreds more.

Hodges 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 in court.

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse," Hodges stated in his Jan. 10 ruling. "But that
is not necessary because the startling pattern of
misrepresentation that has been shown is sufficiently persuasive."

He continued, "While it is not suppression of evidence for a
plaintiff to be unable to identify exposures, it is suppression of
evidence for a plaintiff to be unable to identify exposure in the
tort case, but then later to be able to identify it in Trust
claims. It is that practice that prejudiced Garlock in the tort
system."

Darren McKinney, communications director at the American Tort
Reform Association, said Hodge's actions should encourage other
judges to push claimants to disclose where else they have sought
compensation, arguing that it is inappropriate for plaintiffs to
come into court blaming a select few defendants only to run off
and seek payment from trusts they had denied association with
during court proceedings.

"It's perfectly reasonable for a judge to want to know future
plans to file trust claims," McKinney said. "Let's hope other
bankruptcy judges start wielding it in their own courtrooms
against the fraudsters. There's plenty of them, the fraudsters,
that is."

McKinney said that while the Garlock ruling was a positive result
for asbestos defendants everywhere, he is still skeptical that it
is enough to have an impact in the nation's epicenter of asbestos
litigation -- Madison County.

"One would like to think that the Garlock finding would inspire
judges everywhere, at every level throughout the county, to bring
a healthy degree of skepticism and scrutiny to asbestos claims,"
McKinney said.

He said he is not convinced there is an "appetite" for reform in
Madison County where the number of new filings continues to
increase, and where the vast majority of claimants are from out-
of-state.

Asbestos filings in Madison County in 2013 broke yet another
record with a total of 1,678 new cases, eclipsing a record of
1,563 set in 2012.

A trend that had emerged in Madison County's asbestos docket in
2012 was a surge in lung cancer cases over mesothelioma cases.

At least 650 of the new cases in 2013 were lung cancer cases that
Huelsmann's firm is handling.  He also pointed out that Hodge's
recent ruling was not the first time a judge had approved access
to bankruptcy trust forms. In fact, he said, an Illinois appellate
court ruled more than 20 years ago that discovery of trusts was
appropriate.

"I don't know if it's a hot button issue," Huelsmann said. "The
discoverability aspect has already been ruled on."

He pointed to a First District Appellate Court opinion involving
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, in which the company had
sought discovery of the plaintiff's proof of claim (POC) form
filed with the Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust.

The plaintiff's attorney refused on the grounds that it was
protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product
doctrine. The plaintiff also argued that evidence of exposure was
not relevant.

"While plaintiff may be correct in concluding that the form is
inadmissible, plaintiff does not address whether the POC form is
discoverable," Justice Jill McNulty wrote in 1991. "Therefore,
[Owens-Corning] should have been given the opportunity to discover
whether the POC form did indeed contain facts either disputed or
adverse to [Owens-Corning's] interest or incidental to the
settlement discussions."

Huelsmann said he has used McNulty's "Skonberg" ruling in trial
cases in the past to "force" judges to use claims forms that have
been submitted to bankruptcy trusts.

In fact, Huelsmann said his firm has been successful in getting
bankruptcy trust claim forms admitted into evidence in asbestos
cases before, including a May 2005 asbestos trial in Madison
County.

In that case, plaintiff Willard King blamed defendants Bondex,
Georgia Pacific, John Crane, RPM Inc. and Lynn Tractor and
Equipment Company for his mesothelioma.

King claimed he was contaminated by working with asbestos-
containing products when repairing farm equipment and cars from
1950 through 1987.

A Madison County jury ruled in his favor after approximately nine
hours of deliberation in may 2005 with a fairly meager asbestos
verdict of $500,000 and dismissed Georgia Pacific completely.

Why not investigate?

ATRA's McKinney said the thing he is most concerned about in the
wake of Hodges' decision is why the Justice Department hasn't
launched an investigation into "fraudsters," saying the evidence
is "hiding in plain sight."

He said the Garlock decision brought to light a rampant problem
with double dipping thanks to "gluttons at the trough" in asbestos
litigation.  He also said that courts can be generous to those
with legitimate claims while still "demanding that their lawyers
not lie to trust funds."

"Ultimately, it's harmful to those who are sickened by asbestos,
because if the double dipping goes on as it has rampantly in the
past, it's reasonable to assume at some point that even the
bankruptcy trusts run out of money," he said.

"It's not beyond imagination to foresee a date in the future that
those with righteous and legitimate claims will find that the pot,
that was once available to them, has dried up."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Debris Left on Verge for Months
------------------------------------------------------
Rashelle Predovnik, writing for WAToday, reported that the Swan
shire has come under fire for leaving a pile of asbestos on a
verge in Middle Swan, Western Australia, for around two months,
without covering it or putting on any signage to warn people of
the health hazard.

The debris was created when a resident on the corner of Bishop
Road and Brown Street pulled down the fence and dumped it in the
yard of the house next door -- before she erected a new fence.
When unwitting tenants moved into the house on Brown Street they
assumed the asbestos was fibro and took the pile to the tip.
But the tip refused to accept the asbestos because the hazardous
material was not properly wrapped.

Following his unsuccessful trip to the tip, the worried tenant put
the asbestos on the verge to keep it away from his partner and her
two children, and the pile has sat on the verge uncovered since
before Christmas.

Brown Street resident Rita Reinholdtsen said at least six phone
calls had been made to alert the shire about the asbestos on the
verge by concerned neighbours, but it was not removed.

"Instead the owner of the fence kept getting extensions on the
timeframe she was given to move the asbestos pile she had
created."

"At the very least the shire should have covered it or put tape
around it or signs to alert people of the health risks.

"There's a young lass next door who is pregnant, she walks to
school with her four-year-old and her mother-in-law and they walk
right past it every day."

The Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia president Robert
Vojakovic agreed the shire had been irresponsible.

"It has been reported to the city, they know it's on the verge,
they can remove the asbestos and recoup the cost," he said.
"The fact it has been allowed to sit on the verge since before
Christmas is extraordinary.

"There is also the issue of risk management -- you can't expect
ordinary people to clean this up."

Shortly after Echo News put an enquiry in to the city the resident
who originally pulled the fence down was told by a council
representative she had to remove the pile as a priority.

So she, and her two teenage daughters, picked the asbestos sheets
up off the verge and threw them back over the fence into thier
backyard.

Mrs Reinholdtsen said she was horrified to watch them handle the
asbestos without any masks on.

"They just had gloves and shorts on -- no protective clothing and
obviously they don't understand that fibres get stuck in your
clothing and lungs."

The woman who removed the asbestos said she recieved no help from
the shire.

"I would have been fine paying back the shire if they removed the
asbestos and then billed me but when I asked them who could I
contact to remove the pile for us, if they knew a contractor, I
was told to use Google."

She said she felt pressured after a phone call from the shire, so
she put on some gloves and just got on with it.  But Slater &
Gordon asbestos lawyer Laine McDonald said residents who cleaned
up disturbed asbestos risked being exposed, especially without
adequate respiratory protection.

"Around 250 Western Australians die every year from asbestos-
related diseases and as long as asbestos products remain in our
community we continue to be at risk."

A Department of Health spokesperson said the City of Swan's
environmental health officer was the first point of contact for
residential asbestos issues.

The spokesperson said if a resident had problems contacting the
shire they could call the Health Department's Environmental Health
Directorate on 9388 4999.

"[The directorate] will follow-up with the relevant local
government to ensure that any potential risk to public health has
been appropriately managed."

The spokesperson said it was not the City of Swan's responsibility
to remove the asbestos.

"But it can do if there is a default in complying with a notice,
and costs can be recouped at a later stage.

"Under the Health (Asbestos) Regulations there is no set timeframe
when asbestos needs to be removed.

"However, a notice or verbal advice would normally specify that
this would be expected as soon as possible and practical."

Mr McDonald said anyone who was worried about exposure to asbestos
should add their details to Slater & Gordon's online register.

"These important particulars are recorded in perpetuity, so that
people don't have to remember vital details if they're dealing
with an asbestos-related disease in decades to come."

The City of Swan was contacted for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Quake Fibro Heading South
-------------------------------------------------------
Louise Berwick, writing for The Southland Times, reported that
toxic waste containing asbestos from demolition sites in
Christchurch, New Zealand, could soon be transported to Southland.

Southland company AB Lime, which has a landfill site near Browns,
was approached by a consultant in Christchurch several weeks ago
to see whether it would be willing to take toxic rubble from
condemned buildings in Christchurch.

AB Lime general manager Steve Smith said no deals had been made
and the firm was waiting to hear back from the consultant.

Mr Smith said he understood the arrangement would involve the
material being transported by rail to Invercargill and then
trucked to the Browns site, or trucked all the way from
Christchurch.  He did not know the levels of asbestos, or the
amount of rubble, involved but said the firm already dealt with
sheets of asbestos that had 100 per cent levels of the toxin.

"It can't get any worse than that," he said. "We are definitely OK
to take it . . . it's just the logistics of it."

Mr Smith said that, if the waste came to Southland, the correct
procedures would be followed and the product would be buried and
tracked with GPS to ensure the site was not dug up again.

"The biggest concern for me at this point is the health and safety
of my own staff."

But NZ First MP Denis O'Rourke, who brought the issue into the
public arena, said Southlanders, as well as Canterbury residents,
should be concerned.  He put questions to Earthquake Recovery
Minister Gerry Brownlee during question time in Parliament.

When asked whether he was aware of rumours about the toxic waste
being transported to places as far away as Southland, Mr Brownlee
said he was not.

"What I am aware of is . . . there are 19 contaminated waste sites
in Southland and all of them are accredited, some of them may well
be accredited for receiving asbestos waste but I am not aware that
there is any contract let for such a proposal."

He said all the asbestos waste from Christchurch so far, except
for one shipment, had gone to Kate Valley landfill in Canterbury.
But, if the gate fee at Kate Valley was found to be too expensive,
then the waste could be transported "in a way that was safe" to
another accredited site.

However, the news that it could be transported to Browns, near
Winton, was not welcomed by locals.

Celtic Tavern publican Wayne Stewart said it was "bloody terrible"
news. "I hope we [the locals] have a say in it."

Environment Southland senior pollution prevention officer Leonie
Grace said the council was contacted by Environment Canterbury
several weeks ago about asbestos being transported to Southland
and disposed of by the class A landfill at Browns.

The landfill was consented to dispose of the toxic waste and the
material being brought to the region had "quite low" asbestos
levels, she said. "We don't have any issue with it going there."

According to the Ministry of Health website, asbestos dust can
cause breathing difficulties and even lung cancer. "Left
undisturbed, asbestos is safe -- but if the asbestos is exposed or
damaged, it can be harmful."

Southland District Mayor Gary Tong was unaware of the proposal but
said it was a commercial venture being dealt with by a reliable
Southland company.

However, he would be looking into the issue as he imagined some
ratepayers would "up in arms".

"I guess it comes down to that 'not in my backyard' saying."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Rates Remain Unchanged, Firm Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Despite asbestos restrictions, mesothelioma rates remain
unchanged.  Asbestos is a naturally occurring but highly hazardous
mineral fiber that was once widely used in a variety of industrial
and consumer products in the United States, Brayton Purcell LLP
said in a press release. Unfortunately, while asbestos use in the
U.S. has plummeted dramatically over the past several decades, the
prevalence of mesothelioma -- an asbestos-related cancer --
remains unchanged.

What is mesothelioma?

Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that is caused by
exposure to asbestos. Although it can occur in other parts of the
body, mesothelioma typically affects the lungs, resulting in
severe respiratory problems. The early symptoms of mesothelioma
are often mistaken for other conditions, and may include:

-- Shortness of breath.
-- Chest pain.
-- Coughing or wheezing.
-- Fluid buildup in the tissues around the lungs.
-- Coughing up blood.

Although many years can pass between the initial asbestos exposure
and the onset of symptoms, mesothelioma is usually fatal within a
few months or years after diagnosis.

A history of asbestos use in the United States

Because asbestos was cheaply available and featured desirable
characteristics like sound absorption and heat resistance,
asbestos was once commonly used to make products like insulation,
construction materials and flame-resistant coatings.

In 1973, the use of asbestos in America peaked at 803,000 metric
tons, according to asbestos.com. Over the next two decades, amid
growing concerns over the health risks associated with asbestos
exposure, the Environmental Protection Agency implemented a series
of bans and restrictions on asbestos use in the United States,
causing its use to drop off sharply.

In 2011, the U.S. used just 1,180 metric tons of asbestos.
Unfortunately, despite dramatic reductions in U.S. asbestos use,
even the relatively small amount in use today is enough to put
exposed individuals at risk of devastating illness.

Why mesothelioma rates have not changed in the U.S.

Anywhere from 10 to 50 years can pass between the time that a
person is exposed to asbestos and the first appearance of
mesothelioma symptoms. As a result, many individuals who were
exposed to asbestos decades ago are only just now being diagnosed.
Due in part to this lengthy latency period, the prevalence of
mesothelioma in the U.S. has held steady despite the fact that
asbestos use is now a tiny fraction of what it once was.

In addition, because asbestos use remained widespread until the
mid-1980s, it is still present in many buildings today, including
schools, apartment buildings and offices. When these structures
are remodeled or demolished, asbestos fibers can be released into
the air unless proper preventative measures are taken.
Unfortunately, because asbestos containment and cleanup measures
can be costly and time consuming, it is often done incorrectly or
not at all.

Legal rights of asbestos victims

In many cases, people who have become ill or lost a family member
due to asbestos exposure are eligible to receive monetary
compensation from the parties responsible. Talk to an experienced
mesothelioma attorney to learn more about the legal options
available to asbestos victims and their families.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Executive Loses Fibro Battle
-----------------------------------------------------
UTV reported that Northern Ireland's Housing Executive have lost a
legal battle over asbestos tests to be carried out in thousands of
its properties.  Senior judges ruled that the authority imposed a
greater sampling obligation on a risk management company
contracted to survey homes in Belfast and the north east.

Healthy Buildings (Ireland) Ltd won a GBP1m tender in 2012 to
check for the presence of asbestos in the properties.  Under
Health and Safety Guidance, the firm planned to use a method of
testing which presumed the presence of asbestos.  But it launched
legal action after being told in early 2013 that the main type of
survey required would involve sampling every room in houses.

Healthy Buildings argued that the Housing Executive had issued an
instruction which changed the scope of the contract.  It claimed
this would lead to a major increase in its workload, taking twice
as many staff double the time to complete.  Following the sampling
presumption method one worker could survey up to a dozen premises
a day, the company argued.  But under the new instructions, it
said two workers would be needed to get through six or seven homes
daily.

During an adjudication hearing, the Housing Executive stated that
it preferred the sampling method because presumptions had a
negative commercial effect.  The costs paid in maintenance
contracts through being unnecessarily required to remove material
which may or may not be asbestos was also cited.

With the adjudicator and then, a High Court judge having both
ruled for Healthy Buildings, the Housing Executive took its case
to the Court of Appeal.  But in a judgment, Lord Justice Girvan
held that instructions were given which imposed a greater sampling
obligation on the company than envisaged under the relevant Health
and Safety Guidance.  Dismissing the appeal, he said: "Inevitably
this must result in the admitted instruction being considered to
be an instruction which changed the scope of the works."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Former Orillia School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Matys, writing for Orillia Today, reported that the cost of
demolishing the former Hillcrest Public School, in Ontario,
Canada, is rising by more than $140,000 to rid the building of
additional asbestos.

Asbestos was identified during an initial designated substance
study, and its removal was included in the tendered demolition
price of about $155,000.  Additional asbestos has since been
discovered in piping behind walls and ceilings, as well as within
layers of floor tile and under carpeting.

The material must be removed before the contractor can proceed
with demolition to make way for a neighborhood park, council
heard.  The additional work brings the project within the council
approved budget of $410,000.  Work to date will cost $303,000,
including asbestos removal.

The Hillcrest school was the focus of a proposal by a local group
that hoped to establish affordable housing for vulnerable seniors
there.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: County Offices Relocated During Abatement Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Post reported that an asbestos abatement project scheduled
for the old Wayne County Courthouse, at 26 Church St. in Lyons,
New York, will require meetings and departments located in that
building to be temporarily relocated to other county buildings.
It is anticipated that the temporary relocation will be required
through the end of April. Telephone numbers will not change.
Temporary signage will be posted.

The departments and their temporary locations are:

   * The board of supervisors office, the clerk of the board of
     supervisors and county administrator will be on the first
     floor of 16 William St., Lyons.

   * The county attorney's office will be on the second floor of
     the Public Safety Building at 7376 Route 31, Lyons.

   * The county auditor will be on the second floor of 16 William
     St., Lyons.

   * The public defender will be in the lower level (basement) of
     16 William St., Lyons. Entry will be in the rear of building
     Human resources, civil service, payroll and the county print
     shop will be on the first floor of the Public Safety Building
     at 7376 Route 31, Lyons.

In addition to department relocations, meetings of the Standing
Committees of the Board of Supervisors will be held in the
Conference Room on the first floor of the Public Safety Building.
The Board of Supervisors March and April monthly regular Board
meetings will be held at the Ohmann Theatre at 65 William St.,
Lyons.

The temporary relocations and the asbestos abatement project will
facilitate work related to improvements scheduled for the building
as part of Wayne County's overall energy consumption reduction
project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maryland Court of Appeals Limits Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Ellis, counsel to the U.S. House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, wrote on Insider Online his views on
the so-called "take-home" asbestos cases.

"For decades, asbestos cases have wound their way through state
and federal courts.  The first wave of cases, starting in the
1970s, was brought by construction workers and other plaintiffs
who were directly exposed to asbestos. Thousands of direct-
exposure cases led to the bankruptcy of major asbestos-producing
companies, including Johns-Mansville. Thirty years later, most
direct-exposure plaintiffs have obtained relief or died.  That,
you might think, would mean an end to asbestos lawsuits.  And yet,
litigation is alive and well, thanks to a second wave of lawsuits.
Many plaintiffs in this second wave allege that they were exposed
to asbestos through the contaminated work clothing of spouses or
family members.

Georgia Pacific LLC v. Farrar was part of that second wave of
"take-home" asbestos cases.  The plaintiff, Joyce Farrar, lived
with her grandparents in Maryland in the 1960s.  Her grandfather,
a construction worker at a federal building in Washington, DC, in
1968 and 1969, did not use any asbestos products himself, but he
spent time near drywall workers who used an asbestos-based
Georgia-Pacific joint compound.  As a teenager, Ms. Farrar shook
out her grandfather's dust-covered work clothes, washed the
clothes, and swept the dust from the laundry room floor.  Forty
years after laundering her grandfather's clothes, in 2008, Farrar
was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  She sued thirty defendants,
including Georgia-Pacific, in Maryland state court, and a jury
awarded her nearly $20 million.

Farrar presented the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Free State's
highest court, with two questions: (1) whether Georgia-Pacific
owed a duty to warn the family members of workers who came into
contact with its products about the dangers of asbestos and (2)
whether Farrar presented sufficient evidence that Georgia-
Pacific's products caused her mesothelioma.  Unanimously finding
the answer to the first question to be no, the court did not
answer the second.

The Maryland court's holding was in some respects unremarkable.
Based on the Second Restatement of Torts, Farrar reasoned that
"[a] manufacturer cannot warn of dangers that were not known to it
or knowable in light of the generally recognized and prevailing
scientific and technical knowledge available at the time of
manufacture and distribution."  Some state courts before Farrar
had ruled that manufacturers owed a duty to family members of
asbestos workers.  In this light, the Maryland decision represents
a significant step to limit future "take-home" asbestos claims.

Farrar found that, based on the state of scientific research in
the late 1960s, Georgia-Pacific could not have known that
asbestos-contaminated clothing could harm workers' families.  A
few studies in the 1960s suggested exposure to dust that traveled
home on the workers' clothes could cause health problems, but OSHA
did not require employers to provide changing rooms and
specialized clothing for asbestos workers until 1972.  Even though
it was "in hindsight perhaps fairly inferable" that asbestos dust
could harm workers' families, that inference was not enough to
impose a duty.  In other words, the uncertain state of science
about secondhand asbestos exposure prior to the 1972 OSHA
regulations made it unforeseeable to Georgia-Pacific that family
members like Joyce Farrar who never stepped foot on a construction
site could suffer harms from its products.

Foreseeability was not, however, the only element of Farrar's duty
analysis.  The court further held that whether Georgia-Pacific had
a duty to warn family members depended on whether any warnings
would have been feasible and effective.  Because OSHA did not
issue regulations on changing rooms for asbestos workers until
1972, even if Georgia-Pacific had told its customers -- builders
and manufacturers -- about the dangers of asbestos dust exposure,
nothing guaranteed those middlemen would have passed that warning
along to asbestos workers, let alone to members of their families.
Thus, "even if Georgia-Pacific should have foreseen back in 1968-
69 that individuals such as Ms. Farrar were in a zone of dangers,
there was no practical way that any warning . . . could have
avoided that danger."

Feasibility and foreseeability make for unusual bedfellows.
Earlier Maryland cases suggest that whether a defendant's warning
would have been effective is an element of proximate cause, not
foreseeability.  And Maryland is not alone.  In the famous
Palsgraf case, for instance, the dissent by Judge Andrews argued
that proximate cause means "the law arbitrarily declines to trace
a series of events beyond a certain point.  This is not logic.  It
is practical politics." Judge Cardozo's majority opinion, on the
other hand, eschewed the practical considerations of proximate
cause in favor of foreseeability. Farrar's addition of feasibility
to foreseeability blends the two sides of the Palsgraf debate into
an uneasy compromise.

Because the Maryland court decided Farrar on duty alone, it
avoided the second question before it: whether Farrar presented
sufficient evidence that Georgia-Pacific's products caused her
mesothelioma.  Causation, a factual question for the jury, might
have been a nettlesome issue for the court because Georgia-Pacific
argued strenuously that the verdict below rested on questionable
grounds.  Farrar's grandfather had worked at the federal building
for several months, but he also installed asbestos insulation and
cement for much of his fifty-year career as a construction worker
-- insulation and cement that Georgia-Pacific did not manufacture.
The jury nevertheless found that Georgia-Pacific's drywall joint
compound, rather than any other manufacturer's product, was the
proximate cause of Farrar's mesothelioma.  Foreseeability, even
when modified with feasibility, by contrast, was a purely legal
question that did not require the Court of Appeals to overturn a
jury verdict.

In sum, Farrar represents a significant step to limit asbestos
liability.  Maryland courts will be less likely to impose a duty
on manufacturers with respect to third-party bystanders,
especially when the scientific evidence of a product's harmfulness
is less than certain.  Even if harm is foreseeable, manufacturers
may not be liable if they can show it would not have been possible
to issue an effective warning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Principal Moved During Fibro Probe at School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Irwiin, writing for Northcote Leader, reported that asbestos
has been found in rooms used by prep students and staff at a
primary school, in Thornbury, Melbourne, Australia, with the
school's principal moved to a regional office while an
investigation takes place.

Department of Education spokesman Simon Craig said recent testing
at Wales St Primary School revealed asbestos in dust samples in
the carpet in a room used by preps and the art and craft room in
the building known as Block C, but no detectable levels of
airborne asbestos.

The tests followed building renovation works over the summer
holidays.

Mr Craig said principal Christopher Sexton had been moved to the
northwest regional office while "assisting the Department with the
investigation", with former Preston Girls Secondary College
principal Judi Benney appointed as acting principal. Preston Girls
closed last year.

The Education Department issued the following statement aimed at
reassuring parents:

"Department of Health experts have advised that the risk to any
staff that accessed Block C and two classes of prep students who
used the Library (prep room) in the first week of school term is
low."

Parents were invited to a meeting at the school to discuss their
concerns with experts and were promised they would be updated on
the investigation as it unfolded.

Mr Craig said Block C was currently "off limits", with the rest of
the school operating as normal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Says Low Fibro Exposure Still Dangerous
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that new research published
recently in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, suggests that industrial workers at the lowest levels of
the asbestos exposure spectrum may still be at risk for deadly
mesothelioma, lung cancer, and laryngeal cancer.

The study used data from the long-running Netherlands Cohort Study
of 58,279 Norwegian men between 55 and 69 years old. To determine
the association between asbestos risk and cancer, researchers
compared each man's job history to asbestos-exposure matrices of
various occupations. They then compared likely levels of asbestos
exposure to the incidence of mesothelioma and several other
cancers.

After 17.3 years of follow-up, there were 132 cases of
mesothelioma, 2,324 cases of lung cancer, and 166 cases of
laryngeal cancer. Although very rare, mesothelioma is considered
the most deadly of the asbestos-linked cancers because of its fast
progression and resistance to standard treatments. Of the three
types of cancer studied, only two subtypes -- lung adenocarcinoma
(a form of non-small cell lung cancer) and glottis cancer (a
subtype of laryngeal cancer affecting the vocal chords) -- were
associated with higher levels of prolonged asbestos exposure.

For mesothelioma and all other categories of lung and laryngeal
cancer, even lower levels of asbestos exposure were enough to
trigger disease. "Asbestos levels encountered at the lower end of
the exposure distribution may be associated with an increased risk
of pleural mesothelioma, lung cancer, and laryngeal cancer," the
researchers conclude.

The U.S. EPA has stated that all levels of asbestos exposure are
potentially risky. They have strict guidelines governing the
handling and disposal of asbestos and recommend that do-it-
yourself home renovators hire asbestos abatement professionals in
order to minimize their mesothelioma risk.

The original study appears in the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, the journal of the American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine. (Offermans, NS, et al,
"Occupational Asbestos Exposure and Risk of Pleural Mesothelioma,
Lung Cancer, and Laryngeal Cancer in the Prospective Netherlands
Cohort Study", December 17, 2013, Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Epub ahead of print.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Files Fibro Lawsuit Against Avocet, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that Roy L. Jones, and his wife,
Patricia, have filed an asbestos lawsuit against several
defendants alleging the companies contributed to Mr. Jones lung
cancer. According to the lawsuit, Jones has been diagnosed with
lung cancer resulting from exposure from asbestos. The plaintiffs
are claiming negligence and gross negligence.

The defendants are: Avocet Enterprises Inc., Bird Inc., Carrier
Corp., Certainteed Corp., General Electric Co., Georgia-Pacific
LLC, Ingersoll-Rand Co., Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Riley Power Inc.,
Sears Roebuck and Co., Trane U.S. Inc., Union Carbide Corp.,
Viacom Inc., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Shell Chemical LP.

The couple claim the defendants created dangerous conditions,
failed in safety standards and did not warn employees of the
risks. The Joneses are seeking an amount in damages in excess of
the minimal jurisdictional amounts, plus court costs and any other
relief.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenant Faces Fibro Problems
--------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a man in Halifax, United Kingdom who
battled cancer -- and won -- is losing his fight with the Metro
Regional Housing Authority.

Ray Briand, 65, has lived at Prince Manor in northend Halifax for
three years -- but now he's looking for a new place to live.  He
has a small pension and lives in a modest one bedroom apartment on
the top floor of Prince Manor.  Briand has a number of complaints
about his apartment, complaints he said are not being addressed by
the building owners, the Metro Regional Housing Authority.  He
said he has had a leaking shower since he moved in that is so bad,
tenants below him have complained of water in their apartment.

"Three years I've been telling them something should be done,"
said Briand.

"I just can't live here anymore."

Briand said he has had enough.  He said Metro Regional Housing
Authority has been to his apartment to make some repairs but he
said they're not doing the work that's needed.

"I called them up at the office, asked them to do repair. They
come over and they do a little bit of patchwork and then you
explain to them what the major problem is and I'll they want to do
is patchwork, they don't want to actually do anything. The
shower's been leaking, running down through the hallway, as you
can see, and it's going down to the apartment below me," he said.

Briand said he's been told it's his improperly-positioned shower
curtain, or a lack of caulking that's causing the problem. But he
said he knows how to shower. Instead, he thinks it's a problem
inside the wall.

"She's leaking from the drain or somewhere around the tile coming
back through here and out into the hallway and closet," said
Briand.

The water is causing the tiles in his closet on the other side of
the wall to lift -- tiles that were doing the same thing months
ago and were fixed.  Mildew is also a problem in the closet and
the kitchen. A malfunctioning ventilation system is on the list of
problems.

"All they did was take the grate off [the kitchen fan] and clean
it but as you can see the mildew and stuff like that is still
there but nobody came in with a vacuum or anything trying to
vacuum it," he said.

Briand also said his heat doesn't work properly.   He has also
been told there's asbestos in the ceiling, which was especially
concerning when part of the ceiling collapsed.

"It took them over six months before they came out and tried to
patch it," he said.

Briand beat cancer six years ago. He said the air quality in his
apartment makes it difficult to breathe. He said he can breathe a
lot easier when he's away from the apartment.

In an emailed response to CBC Janet Burt-Gerrans issued the
following comment to Briand's concerns:

"Housing Authorities take maintenance concerns of their tenants
seriously. Just like any landlord, we strive to respond in a
timely manner. Tenants are encouraged to raise concerns and report
maintenance issues directly with their property manager," she
stated.

In the meantime, Briand is continuing his search for a new place
to live.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Melbourne School
-----------------------------------------------------
Allison Wallace, writing for 3AW.com, reported that asbestos has
been discovered in classrooms used by Prep students at a school in
Melbourne's north.

Renovations were conducted in the Prep and art and craft
classrooms of the Wales Street Primary School in Thornbury over
the recent holidays.  While the area was cleaned following the
works, tests conducted on dust samples taken from revealed traces
of asbestos.

Both the Departments of Education and Health say that while
students and staff used the classrooms during the first week of
school the risk to them is low.  The principal of the school,
Christopher Sexton, has been moved to a regional office while the
Department of Education investigates the matter with Worksafe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quake Victim Not Told of Fibro for Three Months
----------------------------------------------------------------
One News reported that a homeowner in Christchurch, New Zealand,
is outraged that positive results from asbestos testing at his
home were not passed on to him until months after they were
available.  The slip-up has been slammed by health officials and
has drawn an apology from those responsible.

Tom Davies has lived in his now "badly damaged" home through
almost 13,000 earthquakes.  But until recently he was unaware that
he did so with the threat of deadly asbestos right above him. He
showed ONE News where his ceiling was drilled for asbestos tests.

EQR, who manage Earthquake Commission repairs, ordered testing in
October last year. Documents show that the positive results were
known on October 22 and the information was forwarded to EQR the
following day.

"One would've thought that if there is asbestos in the property,
or asbestos in the area, that they would tell you immediately," Mr
Davies says.

They didn't, and in fact Mr Davies was not told until January 27,
three months after the results were known.

"They should be getting in touch with them promptly and offering
them options to move out," says Dr Alistair Humphrey, Canterbury
Medical Officer of Health.

In a statement, Fletchers EQR admit that there was an error in
communication. They say it is their policy to contact homeowners
as quickly as possible. However they deny that there was any
heightened risk to occupants.

Experts are advising Mr Davies not to take any chances, until he's
sure his home is safe.

"My advice and our advice always to anyone living in a home where
there is friable asbestos is get out as fast as you can," says Dr
Humphrey.

Mr Davies is not sure his insurance company would pay for him to
move.

"I am paying a mortgage on this house. Could I afford a rental on
top of a mortgage? I'm not sure that I could just at the moment."

The long-term future for the house is looking better with the
asbestos scheduled to be removed.

The long term effect on Tom Davies' health, however, remains to be
seen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury St. Edmunds Company Fined for Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bury Free Press reported that a window replacement company in Bury
St Edmunds, in Suffolk, England, has been fined GBP24,000 after
exposing employees to asbestos during work to replace windows at a
school.

Frames Conservatories Direct Ltd was told the window units at
Westley Middle School contained asbestos panels in January 2012
and started removing and replacing them in the summer holidays
despite not being licensed to work with asbestos, Bury
Magistrates' Court heard.

The company, based at Barton Retail Park, also failed to inform
employees the panels contained asbestos, had not provided asbestos
prevention training and did not use any control measures to
prevent the spread of fibres.  The company admitted two counts of
breaching health and safety regulations between July 30 and August
13, 2012.

Elizabeth Fowle, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive,
said concerns were first raised when another contractor, brought
in to work on a radiator, discovered debris in a floor duct they
believed to be asbestos. A licensed asbestos contractor then
visited the school and advised the Frames employees to stop work
and leave the area.

A clean up and replacement of items at the school cost GBP111,500
with Frames' insurance company covering just under GBP100,000.
Frames made up the shortfall of about GBP20,000 through additional
work at the school including a new conservatory.

Miss Fowle said, based on the quotation for the work, the school
understood Frames would arrange for a registered contractor to
remove and dispose of the panels. However the company intended to
remove the panels itself and that a licensed firm would then
dispose of them from Frames' site.

"This failure to clearly communicate their intention to remove the
panels themselves was a key factor in events that followed," she
said.

Miss Fowle added that due to the nature of asbestos related
disease 'employees exposed to asbestos fibres will have to wait
decades before they know if their health has suffered'.

Julie Gowland, in mitigation, said the company had 'fully accepted
responsibility', lessons had been learnt and it had undertaken a
'complete overhaul' of its health and safety policies.

She said: "They fully accept their knowledge on asbestos was
insufficient. It was naivety on behalf of the company. They were
so absolutely thrilled to have secured a tender for a local school
and ultimately they were out of their depth."

Miss Gowland told magistrates they were 'not dealing with a cowboy
outfit' and there was no suggestion it had put profit before
safety which the Health and Safety Executive agreed with.

She added: "The company now have in place a system for dealing
with asbestos or any suspected asbestos incidents. They have a
number of licensed companies that can deal with testing of
samples. They're now fully compliant in terms of the rules and
regulations."

Employees have also taken an asbestos awareness course and she
noted that one of the employees involved said 'despite the
incident and risk to his health he will continue to work for the
company for a long time'.

It had also taken on subsidised work at the school and offered to
pay for the clean up.

Miss Gowland said there was 'no intention to mislead the school'
and the company's understanding was it would remove the panels and
a licensed company would remove them from its site.

The company was fined GBP24,000 and ordered to pay GBP10,571 in
costs.

After the hearing, Nick Templeton, head at Westley Middle, said:
"They made a mistake and they very quickly held their hands up to
making a mistake. They went out of their way to put everything
right in the school and put things right in terms of their health
and safety procedures. As a result of that we used them to
continue the rest of the work."

He added the school was cleared of contamination in the summer
holidays before pupils returned.

In a statement, Adrian Lewis, managing director of Frames, said:
"Firstly, we would like to publicly apologise to Westley Middle
School for the incident and thank headteacher Mr Nick Templeton,
the caretaker and other members of staff for the unwavering
support they have shown us every step of the way.

"We would also like to thank the health and safety executives for
carrying out an extremely professional and thorough investigation.
We would also like to thank our own staff for their support
throughout, especially the three members of staff that were
directly involved. Dealing with asbestos, in particular the safe
removal of it, is an extremely complex procedure.

"A lot can go wrong, and in this one instance, we were naive and
we hold our hands up.

We managed to maintain an excellent working relationship with
Westley Middle School and continue to work with them because we
reacted quickly and professionally to the situation. We entered
the project with Westley Middle School with excitement in the hope
that we were going to provide the local community with a fabulous
school renovation, we believe we have achieved that result.

"As mentioned by the court, we never cut any corners with this
project for commercial gains.

"The local community have been exceptional in their support of
Frames Conservatories Direct, and for that we are very grateful.
We hope as a company to continue doing as much work as we can to
support the community in particular our involvement with local
sport, continuing to sponsor Bury Town Football Club and the Bury
Rugby Club.

"Since the incident, as a company, we have learnt some valuable
lessons and it has made the company stronger. We have spent a
great deal of time and money ensuring our processes for safe
asbestos removal is second to none.

In fact we have gone on to work with many local schools and
commercial buildings -- advising and removing asbestos where
necessary. Lastly, we would just like to reassure you that the
school and pupils were never effected in any way by the asbestos
discovery and the school remained open at all times so pupils were
not disrupted. And we hope the Westley Middle School is now
benefitting from their new A-rated windows and doors and a new
conservatory."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Close Santa Monica, CA Post Office
------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Arevalo, writing for Santa Monica Patch, reported that Ocean
Park post office in Santa Monica, California, has been closed to
check for asbestos, postal officials announced.

P.O. Box service has been relocated to Santa Monica Post Office,
1653 7th St. in Santa Monica.

Ceiling tiles in a bathroom, possibly containing asbestos were
damaged during a water leak on the floor above the Ocean Park
station, at 2720 Neilson Way in Santa Monica.

"An environmental specialist is assessing the facility and air
quality inside," said a press release from the U.S Postal Service,
which leases the space in the building.

The small facility houses retail and Post Office Box operations
only. There are no letter carrier delivery operations at the
location. The two employees who work at Ocean Park Station have
been reassigned to another location.

Ocean Park Post Office Box customers can pick up their mail --
with photo ID -- at the Santa Monica Post Office from 9 a.m. to 6
p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday.

"Operations will return to Ocean Park Station as soon as the
matter is resolved," says the press release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Care Firm Fined GBP24,000 for Fibro Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nottingham Post reported that a care provider in Mansfield, United
Kingdom, has been ordered to pay fines and costs of GBP24,000
after it admitted failing to properly control the risk of exposing
workers to asbestos.

Debdale Specialist Care Ltd, which runs Thistle Hill Hall care
home, in Debdale Lane, Mansfield Woodhouse, pleaded guilty at
Nottingham Crown Court.

The court ordered the company to pay a GBP4,000 fine and GBP20,000
towards prosecution costs.

Environmental health officers from Mansfield District Council
began an investigation after receiving a report from the Health
and Safety Executive in March 2012.

Prosecuting for the council, Chris Geeson said there was no proper
asbestos management plan at the care home. This would have ensured
that people working in areas where asbestos was present were aware
of it and did not do anything to risk their health.

Council officers served a notice on the company which prohibited
anyone other than an asbestos specialist from entering the loft
areas.

A survey in May 2012 revealed there were a number of asbestos-
containing materials in loft areas, the court heard.

These materials were said to pose a higher risk and the survey
recommended that they were removed. Three maintenance staff had
worked in the loft over several years without knowledge of the
asbestos.

The company engaged specialists who removed a significant number
of asbestos-containing materials and helped it to implement a
management plan.

Sentencing, Judge Sampson noted that the company had accepted that
the presence of asbestos in the loft areas was not managed
effectively and to the extent required by law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corpos Back Changes to Civil Procedure Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a group of more than 300 corporations collectively have
written a letter to the Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States
supporting select proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

They also addressed their letter to Judge David G. Campbell,
chairman of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee.

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure opened their
proposals for comment on Aug. 15, 2013.

In their letter, the group of 308 corporations argues that
litigation has run rampant with "costly and inconsistent"
obligations for attorneys to preserve, process and produce data
for discovery, while much of it "has no real relevance to the
issue in dispute," and is, often times, not even used during
trial.

Such tedious actions leave corporations without "clear and
consistent" guidelines for preserving information that could be
required for discovery later.

In some cases, corporate parties sometimes over-preserve to
prepare for future discovery and avoid "tactical threats of
spoliation sanctions."

On the other hand, corporate parties may settle claims "based on
high costs rather than on the merits of the litigation."

"Federal litigation today is inefficient, too expensive, and
fraught with too many uncertainties that have little or nothing to
do with the merits of particular cases," the letter states.

The group's interest in the proposed amendments extends beyond
supporting select amendments. They also requested that the
amendments be approved with "important improvements."

They begin by addressing proposed amendments to Rule 37(e), which
focuses on failure to make disclosures or to cooperate in
discovery and sanctions.

According to the preliminary draft of proposed amendments, Rule
37(e) "provided protection against sanctions 'under these rules'
for loss of electronically stored information due to the 'routine,
good-faith operation of an electronic information system.'"

However the Committee Note to this rule observed that it might
need to be altered as the "amount and variety of digital
information has expanded enormously in the last decade, and the
costs and burdens of litigation holds have escalated as well."

The committee also seeks to broaden the rule, applying it to all
discoverable information, not just what is stored electronically.

So, the committee hopes to focus on preservation decisions, making
the most serious sanctions unavailable if the party who lost
information acted reasonably. However, their approach would not
give specific direction on when a preservation obligation arises
or the scope of the obligation.

The current rule does not address resort to inherent power. The
proposed amendment, however, "affirmatively provides authority for
sanctions for failure to preserve discoverable information, [and]
should remove any occasion to rely on inherent power.

"Sanctions (as opposed to curative measures) could be employed
only if the court finds that the failure to preserve was willful
or in bad faith, and that it caused substantial prejudice in the
litigation," the draft of proposed amendments states.

As for curative measures, the rule "authorizes a variety of
measures to reduce or cure the consequences of loss of
information, and the Committee Note repeatedly recognized that
those measures should be preferred to imposing sanctions if they
can substantially undo the litigation harm resulting from the
failure to preserve."

The group wrote in their letter that while the proposed changes
are not perfect, they do hold some promise in addressing
litigation problems.

"To be effective, however, it should be revised to clarify that an
award of sanctions requires a showing of specific intent to
deprive another party of discoverable information, and that the
threshold for 'curative measures' requires a showing of
significant prejudice to a party to the litigation," the letter
stated.

The group of corporations then switches gears to address Rule
26(b), welcoming the changes, specifically the proposed deletion
of the phrase, "'[r]elevant information need not be admissible at
the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.'"

"This phrase has been abused by parties and misconstrued by many
courts," the letter states. "As a result, it has stretched the
scope of discovery beyond the reasonable intention of its original
drafters."

The proposed amendment doesn't quite go as far as deleting the
phrase completely from the rule. Instead, it seeks to revise the
phrase, stating that it dates back to 1946 when it was intended to
"overcome decisions that denied discovery solely on the ground
that the requested information would not be admissible evidence."

The phrase 'relevant' was added in 2000 in order "'to clarify that
information must be relevant to be discoverable.'" But the
'reasonably calculated' language is interpreted today "as though
it defeines the scope of discovery, and judges often hear lawyers
argue that this sentence sets a broad standard for appropriate
discovery."

In an attempt to address confusion, the committee proposes to
revise this sentence to read: "'Information within the scope of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.'"

"The limits defining the scope of discovery are thus preserved.
The purpose of the amendment is to carry through the purpose
underlying the 2000 amendment, with the hope that this further
change will at last overcome the inertia that has thwarted this
purpose," the draft of proposed amendments states.

"Taken together, these proposed amendments will address the
burdens of both over-preservation and overbroad discovery," the
letter stated. "More importantly, they will begin to reverse the
trend favoring resolution of cases based on costs, rather than on
the merits."

Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia referred to the current Rule
26(b) recently in an asbestos lawsuit involving a deceased
mesothelioma victim through second-hand exposure.

Eifert filed a memorandum opinion and order on Feb. 5 addressing
defendant Ohio Power Company's (OPC) motion for protective order
against plaintiff Eldon Amick's discovery requests. She granted
part and denied part of the request for protective order.

Eldon Amick, represented for deceased Barbara Amick, worked as a
bookkeeper for America Gas & Electric at OPC's Muskingum River
Power Plant in 1953 and 1954, where asbestos deposited on his
clothing each day.

His wife, Barbara Amick, allegedly inhaled the asbestos fibers
while laundering his work clothes and eventually developed
mesothelioma from her exposure.  Amick filed a notice of
deposition in December 2013 pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure.

OPC objected to certain topics of inquiry mentioned in the
deposition request on Jan. 7 and eventually filed a motion for
protective order.  Eifert wrote that Rule 26(b) "permits a party
to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense."

"While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not define
'relevant information,' the Federal Rules of Evidence define it as
'evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,'"
she added.

However, admissibility is not the guideline for relevancy when it
comes to discovery, Eifert noted, as the scope of relevancy is
broad. Information is relevant, and thus discoverable, if it could
lead to matters that bear or could bear on any issue in the case.

"Although the pleadings are the starting point from which
relevancy and discovery are determined . . . [r]elevancy is not
limited by the exact issues identified in the pleadings, the
merits of the case, or the admissibility of discovered
information. Rather, the general subject matter of the litigation
governs the scope of relevant information for discovery purposes.
Therefore, courts broadly construe relevancy in the context of
discovery,'" Eifert stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court May Take Away Right to File Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Maxfield, writing for The Motley Fool, reported that if the
controversial oil-services company Halliburton has its way, then
small investors may soon lose one of their most potent weapons
against corporate fraud: the ability to file class-action lawsuits
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

At the end of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
Halliburton's appeal in a class-action case brought by investors
against it and CEO David Lesar for "knowingly or severely
recklessly misleading" the public more than a decade ago about the
company's liability for asbestos claims.

Indeed, it's no exaggeration to say that the very existence of
securities fraud class actions hinges almost entirely on the
outcome of this case.

The facts of the case

The facts involve statements made by Halliburton in 2001 about the
extent of exposure to asbestos litigation assumed in its
acquisition of Dresser Industries.

In January of that year, the company reported that "prospective
asbestos liabilities . . . should have minimal adverse impact on
the company going forward." In August, it claimed that "asbestos
exposure concerns appear to be overblown." And in November, it
stated that "open asbestos claims will be resolved without a
material adverse effect on our financial position or the results
of operations."

Yet less than a month after the last statement, Halliburton was
hit with a $30 million asbestos verdict, causing investors to lose
faith in the company's assurances and fear the worst. Shares in
the oil services company proceeded to plummet, dropping by 42.7%
on the day of the announcement.

The current class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors
soon thereafter and has made its way through various courts ever
since.

A critical legal wrinkle

The specific issue before the Supreme Court is a nuanced one.
Halliburton isn't simply professing its innocence or asking the
justices to hold that it didn't mislead investors. Instead, it's
moving the court to bar plaintiffs from litigating the case as a
class action as opposed to separate lawsuits.

On the surface, this doesn't seem like a big deal. Who cares if
investors have to sue Halliburton individually as opposed to as a
class? What difference does it make to people who didn't own
Halliburton stock when the alleged misrepresentations took place?

The answer is that it makes a huge difference.

This is because Halliburton is asking the court to overturn a
legal doctrine known as the "fraud on the market" theory, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that investors rely on statements
of material fact made publicly by corporate executives. Without
this presumption, securities fraud cases would be far too
complicated to litigate as class actions, leaving individual
investors to fend for themselves against deep-pocketed
corporations.

The implications of this would be considerable. Most importantly,
for nearly three decades, the securities laws have been predicated
on both public and private enforcement -- the former by the SEC
and Justice Department and the latter by private class-action
lawsuits. Without the latter, in turn, the market would lose a
critical overseer and, one can only assume, be far more
susceptible to deceit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Community Hospital Set to Resume
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kermit Rower, writing for Springfield News-Sun, reported that
demolition on the old west wing of the former Community Hospital,
in Springfield, Ohio, will begin, said Dave Lamb, director of
communications for Community Mercy Health Partners.

"Progress was somewhat delayed recently by poor weather," said
Lamb. "Earlier work took longer than initially planned because the
level of remediation  -- also known as asbestos removal  -- was
more than projected. However, given the age of the facility,
that's not a big surprise. You simply don't know until you get in
there."

Approximately two weeks afterward, demolition of the area
landmark's most identifying structure, the tall tower, is slated
to begin. The entire demolition, originally estimated to cost
about $3 million, is expected to be completed within three to four
weeks, weather permitting.

"This phase of demolition may be of special interest to the
community because it's not only the final building to come down,
it was also the original facility built on that site," said Lamb
of the tall tower. "It can be considered a bittersweet event.

"We owe it to the neighbors not to let a big, outdated structure
remain standing to become a long-term eyesore," he continued. "On
the other hand, that site holds a lot of great memories for people
who were born or cared for there. A lot of our employees also have
special memories of that hospital as well."

Community Hospital closed in November of 2011 on the same day the
new downtown hospital, Springfield Regional Medical Center,
opened. Demolition started in October of 2012. Demolition plans
for Mercy Medical Center still aren't finalized.

Dave Smith, director of engineering and plant operations at
Community Mercy Health Partners, said an asbestos removal project
of this size usually takes anywhere from three to four months.
"But we went a couple of months more," said Smith. "There were a
lot of factors. More asbestos was observed when we started tearing
out walls. I would say large percentage of the asbestos was behind
walls.

"Also, some of the older windows had some," he continued. "So we
had to change the process, and get them contained and sent away."
The weather further hampered efforts. A "wet process" was used to
cut down on airborne asbestos during the removal process to ensure
safety of the workers. But "wet" and "winter" don't go well
together.

"The hoses that supplied the water for the wet process we used
would freeze, and we had to thaw them every day because most of
area we worked in was exposed to the weather," said Smith. "And we
had days where we couldn't work at all because of the weather."
Lamb said he understood why the demolition of Community Hospital
is such an emotional subject, and he is thankful to those who have
been involved in the transition the Springfield community has
undergone.

"While the community has embraced our new state-of-the-art
Springfield Regional Medical Center, we tip our hats to the
caregivers and patients who made Community Hospital a special
place," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Manor Water Project Moving Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Post, writing for The Leader, reported that officials in the
town of Corning, New York, have the most important piece in place
to apply for a grant that they hope will pay for a new water
system in the Corning Manor subdivision.

In order to apply for the $600,000 Community Development Block
Grant, the town had to do a survey to prove that most of the
area's residents were low or moderate income.  But they also had
to have a 90 percent response rate on the survey, something that's
often extremely difficult to achieve.

Town Supervisor Kim Feehan said when the response rate began to
slow, and town officials feared they wouldn't meet the
requirement, two Corning Manor homeowners, Tom Doud and Paul
Simonson, went out into the neighborhood and were able to
encourage residents to return the rest of the needed surveys.
Feehan said the surveys have been tallied, and the neighborhood
definitely meets the grant requirements in that respect.

Another important part of the process: The town is in the process
of gathering letters of support for the project from community
business leaders, businesses and Corning Manor residents.

Those letters are "greatly needed and appreciated," Feehan said,
and have to be submitted by May 1.  She said the town also has to
have engineering proposals for the project in hand by March 3 so
the Town Board can approve a proposal March 11.

The project is necessary because the state Department of Health
has recommended upgrades to the neighborhood's water system.  It
currently consists of 5,000 feet of 6-inch asbestos cement water
mains and 3/4 inch service lines to homes, which in many cases
results in pressure of 27-35 PSI inside residences.

The state says that pressure is too low, and that the asbestos
cement pipes are a potential hazard, although regular tests by the
water district have never found asbestos in the water.  Town
officials are concerned the state could soon fine them for failing
to make the changes, which have been recommended for a decade.

The cost of the upgrades is estimated at around $600,000.
To cover those costs, town officials are seeking the Community
Development Block Grant and an Appalachian Regional Commission
grant of up to $150,000.  The town is planning to officially apply
for the grants in the summer.

At a meeting held in September 2013 in Shawn Lane Memorial Park,
inside the Corning Manor neighborhood, residents raised some
concerns about pressure levels from the new water lines.

Like the water system itself, most of the homes in Corning Manor
were built around 1950. The water pipes for each house were laid
out and then a concrete slab foundation was poured over them --
meaning many residents can't replace or even repair their water
pipes.  They're concerned the additional pressure might be too
much for the old plumbing.

Feehan said one of the town's requirements under the engineering
bids was for a full-system pressure limiter, and pressure limiters
for each of the 99 residences.  She said part of the engineering
process will be to find a solution to make sure homes don't get
too much pressure.  The other open question related to the
project, Feehan said, is the possibility of using a procedure
called pipe-bursting to replace the water mains.

That technology essentially expands the old water pipes to a large
enough diameter to allow the larger pipes to be run through,
destroying the old pipe in the process.  It could save the town a
lot of hassle in removing the old pipes, and save residents a lot
of large holes being dug in their neighborhood, but Feehan said
they're not sure yet how it would affect the maintenance process
if the new pipes have to be repaired later.  Whether or not the
grant is awarded, the work is still going to have to be done.

Feehan said last year borrowing money to pay for the project would
raise residents' water bills about $24 per month.  If the grant is
awarded, work on the upgrades is expected to start in 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Flips Ruling in "Farrow" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Farrow died in 2008 as a result of contracting
mesothelioma.  Prior to his death, he and his wife, Lidia Farrow,
filed a lawsuit against a number of defendants, including
Flowserve US Inc., who they sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Edward Valves, Inc.  The Farrows alleged that Michael
had contracted mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to
asbestos-containing products while working at the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard over the span of two decades.

Melvin Wortman, a superintendent at the PSNS during part of
Farrow's tenure, was deposed in a different lawsuit, and
subsequently died before Farrow's case could be heard.  Initially,
the trial court allowed Farrow to offer Wortman's testimony, over
EVI's hearsay objection, pursuant to the "predecessor in interest"
exception of ER 804(b)(1).  However, after excluding Wortman's
testimony as to several other defendants, the trial court reversed
course and excluded his testimony in Farrow's case, leading to its
grant of Flowserve's motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated March 3, 2014, ruled that the trial court erred in making
the latter rulings.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded for further proceedings.

The case is MICHAEL FARROW and LIDIA FARROW, Appellants, v. ALFA
LAVAL, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to THE
DELAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY and SHARPLES CORPORATION);
ANCHOR/DARLING VALVE COMPANY; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BEAIRD COMPANY;
BUFFALO PUMPS, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to BUFFALO FORGE COMPANY); BW/IP INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(sued individually and as successor-in-interest to BYRON JACKSON
PUMP COMPANY); CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER
CAMERON CORPORATION (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to COOPER-BESSEMER CORPORATION); CARRIER CORPORATION;
CLA-VAL CO.; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. f/k/a AQUA-CHEM, INC. d/b/a
CLEAVER-BROOKS DIVISION (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to DAVIS ENGINEERING COMPANY); COLTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.
(sued individually and as successor-in-interest to FAIRBANKS MORSE
ENGINE); CRANE CO. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to COCHRANE CORPORATION and CHAPMAN VALVE CO.); CRANE
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to COCHRANE CORPORATION); CROSBY VALVE, INC.; EATON
HYDRAULICS, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to VICKERS INC.); ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY COMPANY a/k/a ELLIOTT
COMPANY; E.J. BARTELLS SETTLEMENT TRUST; FAIRBANKS MORSE PUMP
CORPORATION; FMC CORPORATION (sued individually and as successor-
in-interest to PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY); FRYER-KNOWLES, INC.; FRYER-
KNOWLES, INC., a Washington corporation; GARLOCK SEALING
TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to GARLOCK, INC.); GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to HARRISON THERMAL
SYSTEM and HARRISON RADIATOR); GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; HARDIE-TYNES,
L.L.C. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to HARDIE-
TYNES MANUFACTURING COMPANY); HARDIE-TYNES MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
HOKE INCORPORATED; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; HOPEMAN BROTHERS MARINE
INTERIORS, L.L.C. a/k/a HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES,
INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to DELAVAL
TURBINE, INC. and C.H. WHEELER); ITT INDUSTRIES, INC. (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to BELL & GOSSETT,
KENNEDY VALVE MANUFACTURING CO., KENNEDY VALVE, INC. and KENNEDY
VALVE CO); INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to EDWARD VALVE & MANUFACTURING); J.T.
THORPE & SON, INC.; JOHN CRANE, INC.; LESLIE CONTROLS, INC.; M.
SLAYEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; MCWANE INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to KENNEDY VALVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
KENNEDY VALVE INC. and KENNEDY VALVE COMPANY); METALCLAD
INSULATION CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PLANT
INSULATION COMPANY; RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION (sued as successor-
in-interest to PHILIP CAREY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION); SB
DECKING, INC. f/k/a SELBY BATTERSBY & CO.; SEPCO CORPORATION;
STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS, INC. f/k/a PEERLESS PUMPS CO; SYD
CARPENTER, MARINE CONTRACTOR, INC.; THOMAS DEE ENGINEERING CO.,
INC.; TRIPLE A MACHINE SHOP, INC.; TYCO FLOW CONTROL, INC. (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to THE LUNKENHEIMER
COMPANY, and HANCOCK VALVES); WARREN PUMPS, L.L.C. (sued
individually and successor-in-interest to QUIMBY PUMP COMPANY);
WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC. f/k/a ATWOOD & MORRILL; THE
WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY; YARWAY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-450
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, FLOWSERVE US INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to DURCO INTERNATIONAL, BYRON JACKSON PUMP
COMPANY, ALDRICH and EDWARD VALVE & MANUFACTURING), Respondents,
NO. 69917-2-I (Wash. App.).

Counsel for Appellants is:

         William Joel Rutzick, Esq.
         Kristin Margret Houser, Esq.
         Thomas James Breen, Esq.
         SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
         810 3rd Ave Ste 500
         Seattle, WA, 98104-1657
         Tel: 206-622-8000
         Fax: 206-682-2305

Randy Jarl Aliment, Esq. -- raliment@williamskastner.com -- and
Zackary Adam Paal, Esq. -- zpaal@williamskastner.com -- at
Williams Kastner & Gibbs, in Seattle, Washington; and Michael M.
Garrett, Esq. -- mgarrett@edwardswildman.com -- and Martha S.
Brown, Esq. -- mbrown@edwardswildman.com -- at Edwards Wildman
Palmer, LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, Counsel for Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops Various Claims in "Hasenberg" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
William and Linda Hasenberg sue 35 Defendants seeking to recover
for injuries William allegedly sustained from exposure to
asbestos-containing products during his work in the U.S. Navy from
1968 to 1972, in a series of jobs from 1974 to 1988, and on
personal automotive repairs from 1973 to 2013.  One of the named
Defendants, Crane Co., removed the case to the United States
District Court from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.
Because removal was premised on 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) and not 28
U.S.C. 1441(a), the requirement that all properly served
defendants must join in or consent to the removal did not apply.

Currently pending before the Court are 11 motions filed by the
Defendants seeking dismissal on various grounds, plus two motions
filed by the Plaintiffs seeking to voluntarily dismiss certain
claims and counts.

Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois ruled that by virtue of the
Plaintiffs "stipulation," the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss
without prejudice Counts IV and V of their complaint against
Defendants Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Trane
U.S., Inc.  Moreover, in another unopposed motion, the Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed Counts IV and V of their complaint against
another eight Defendants -- Continental Teves, Inc.; Flowserve
Corporation; Cummins, Inc.; Gardner Denver, Inc.; Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation; Warren Pumps, LLC; Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation; and Certainteed Corporation.  Accordingly, Judge
Reagan treated the Plaintiffs' motion as a stipulation as to
Continental Teves, Flowserve Corporation, Cummins, Gardner Denver,
Foster Wheeler, Warren Pumps, Air & Liquid Systems, and
Certainteed Corporation.

The case is WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR., and LINDA HASENBERG,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al. Defendants, CASE
NO. 13-CV-1325-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Reagan's March 1, 2014, order is available at http://is.gd/WN7Fqn
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Allows Inmate to Refile Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Cole, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional
Center, brought an action alleging that while he was incarcerated
at Moberly Correctional Center, he was exposed to asbestos.  He
said the asbestos made him sick, and he claims that he was denied
medical care.  Named as defendants are MCC, the Department of
Corrections, and "MCC Medical."

Judge E. Richard Webber of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to commence the action without
payment of the required filing fee.  Judge Webber found that the
Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
but gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint.

The case is WILLIAM K. COLE, Plaintiff, v. DOC MCC, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:14CV00007 ERW (E.D. Mo.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Webber's Feb. 11, 2014, memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/vwbjWjfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Abadie" Take-Home Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Leonard Abadie, Jr., now deceased, filed a lawsuit
against multiple defendants, including Avondale Industries, Inc.,
n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, claiming that his exposure
to asbestos from various sources resulted in his development of
mesothelioma.  In response to the suit, Avondale filed a third-
party demand against various defendants, including Executone
Systems of La, Inc.  Avondale's third-party demand against
Executone was based on claims of "take-home" or household asbestos
exposure by Mr. Abadie, Jr., from asbestos fibers brought home on
Mr. Abadie, Sr.'s clothing during Mr. Abadie, Sr.'s employment
with Executone from 1961 to 1970.

Executone filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a dismissal
with prejudice of Avondale's third-party demand.  On May 6, 2013,
the district court rendered judgment in favor of Executone.
Avondale appealed the district court's judgment.

On February 5, 2014, the same day the case was submitted to the
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, the parties filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss contending that they resolved their
differences.  Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2162, an appeal can be
dismissed by consent of all parties.  Therefore, a three-judge
panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Stephen J. Windhorst and
Hans J. Liljeberg granted the Joint Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the appeal.

The case is LEONARD ABADIE, JR., v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD, ET
AL., NO. 13-CA-768 (La. App.).  A full-text copy of the Court of
Appeals' Feb. 12, 2014, decision penned by Judge Windhorst is
available at http://is.gd/OZ2FTIfrom Leagle.com.

GARY A. LEE, Esq., RICHARD M. PERLES, Esq., ANN CATES, Esq.,
STEVEN E. LACOSTE, Esq., and JOHN M. FUTRELL, Esq., ATTORNEYS AT
LAW, 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4120, New Orleans, Louisiana
70170, COUNSEL FOR THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

CHARLES H. ABBOTT, Esq., CHRISTINE CHANGHO BRUNEAU, Esq., and ERIN
WEDGE LATUSO, Esq., ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 650 Poydras Street, One
Shell Square, Suite 2810, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, COUNSEL
FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Verdict in Kent Cigarettes Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda McGuire, executrix of the estate of William "Bill" McGuire,
filed claims of negligence and products liability in Jefferson
Circuit Court against Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth
& Vose Company.  Following a defense verdict on her claims, Wanda
now appeals.

Bill McGuire was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  Bill and his wife
sued 33 separate entities, alleging that each entity had exposed
him to asbestos and that each exposure was a substantial factor in
causing his disease.  Bill alleged that many of these entities had
exposed him to asbestos over the course of his employment as an
ironworker.  However, as it related to Lorillard and H&V, he
alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos by virtue of the
"Original Kent" cigarette.  Not only did Bill smoke Original Kent
cigarettes, he also worked at Lorillard's plant from August 1953
to August 1954.

A three-judge panel composed of Judge James H. Lambert, Judge Joy
A. Moore, and Judge Laurance B. VanMeter in the Court of Appeals
of Kentucky, in an opinion rendered on Feb 14, 2014, affirmed the
verdict, holding that, to the limited extent the advertising
materials for Kent were relevant to Wanda's negligence claims, the
probative value of the materials was substantially outweighed by
its potential to confuse the issues presented as explained by the
circuit court.  Moreover, the Court of Appeals found that Wanda
does not explain how its omission constituted anything other than
harmless error; as noted by the circuit court, nothing prevented
Wanda from otherwise pointing out that Lorillard marketed its Kent
cigarettes without giving any warnings about asbestos being in the
filters.

The case is WANDA McGUIRE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM
McGUIRE, Appellant, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY and HOLLINGSWORTH
& VOSE COMPANY, Appellees, NO. 2012-CA-000845-MR (Ky. App.). A
full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Judge Moore is available
at http://is.gd/hKukWafrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth L. Sales, Esq., Joseph D. Satterly, Esq., Paul J. Kelley,
Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky; and Linda George, Esq., and Kathy
Farinas, Esq., in Indianapolis, Indiana, BRIEF FOR APPELLANT.
Joseph D. Satterly, Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENT
FOR APPELLANT.

David T. Schaefer, Esq., and Anne K. Guillory, Esq., in
Louisville, Kentucky; James E. Berger, Esq., in Kansas City,
Missouri; and Ricardo G. Cedillo, Esq., in San Antonio, Texas,
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY.  James E. Berger,
Esq., in Kansas City, Missouri, ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE,
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY.

Richard W. Edwards, Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky; Andrew J.
McElaney, Jr., Esq., and Timothy D. Johnston, Esq., in Boston,
Massachusetts BRIEF FOR APPELLEE HOLLINGSWORTH AND VOSE COMPANY.
Richard W. Edwards, Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENT
FOR APPELLEE, HOLLINGSWORTH AND VOSE COMPANY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Granted Summary Judgment in Del. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Allen T. and Tommie Hoofman filed an asbestos action
against numerous defendants, including Defendant FMC Corporation,
on behalf of its former Chicago Pump and Northern Pump businesses,
and Defendant Goulds Pumps, Inc., alleging wrongful exposure to
the Defendants' asbestos-containing products between 1958 and
1990.  The Defendants move for summary judgment, asserting (1)
that Maritime law applies to the Plaintiffs' claims, and (2) that
under either Maritime or Arkansas law, they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.  Following a hearing on January 9,
2014, the Superior Court of Delaware, Newcastle County, reserved
its decision on the Defendants' motions for summary judgment and
requested the Parties submit further briefing on the applicability
of Maritime law.

Having reviewed the Parties submissions and representations at
oral argument, the Superior Court granted the Defendants' motions
for summary judgment.  The Court stated that it is not satisfied
that the record in the case is sufficiently developed so that the
Court could engage in the fact-intensive analysis required to
determine whether the injury occurred on navigable waters, whether
the tort would have an effect on maritime commerce, and whether
there exists a relationship between the activity giving rise to
the tort and traditional maritime activity,

The Court, however, need not resolve the applicable law question
as in light of the evidence developed, the Plaintiffs have not
sustained their burden to demonstrate that any material issue of
fact remains to be determined by a jury as to whether any
asbestos-containing products manufactured by the Defendants caused
Mr. Hoofman's lung cancer.  This is so whether the Court applied
the Maritime or Arkansas standard, the Feb. 14, 2014, opinion
penned by Judge Wallace said.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ALLEN T. and
TOMMIE HOOFMAN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID CORP., et al.,
Defendants, C.A. NO. N12C-04-243 ASB (Del. Super.).  A full-text
copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/HwqBZNfrom
Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, New York, Attorney for
Plaintiffs.

Neal C. Glenn, Esq. -- nglenn@kjmsh.com -- and Daniel P. Daly,
Esq. -- ddaly@kjmsh.com -- at Kelly Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna
& Reber, L.L.P., in Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant
FMC Corporation and its former Chicago Pump and Northern Pump
businesses.

Robert S. Goldman, Esq., at Phillips Goldman & Spence, P.A., in
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant Goulds Pumps, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arbitration Award in Reinsurance Suit Confirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
R&Q Reinsurance Company on November 12, 2013, moved for summary
judgment against defendant Utica Mutual Insurance Company, seeking
confirmation of an arbitration panel's final order issued on
October 19, 2013.  Utica opposes confirmation on the grounds that
the Award is not a final judgment, but instead represents,
effectively, an interim award in an arbitration that never reached
completion.

In the lawsuit, R&Q seeks to confirm an arbitration Award,
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.  That Award was the
outcome of an arbitration charged with resolving the extent to
which R&Q was liable for amounts billed to it by Utica.  These
billings arose out of nine reinsurance certificates, all of which
R&Q had issued to Utica between 1978 and 1982.  These nine
certificates covered "umbrella policies" that Utica had written to
cover losses suffered by Goulds Pumps Inc. arising, at least in
large part, out of long-term injuries suffered by employees'
exposure to asbestos.

In an opinion and order dated Feb. 14, 2014, Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, granted R&Q's motion for summary judgment,
concluding that R&Q has shown that there is no material issue of
fact for trial.  There is much more than the required "barely
colorable justification for the outcome reached," Judge Engelmayer
ruled.

The case is R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UTICA MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 13 CIV. 8013 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.).
A full-text copy of Judge Engelmayer's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/8yrXUIfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Quirin" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In MARILYN F. QUIRIN, Special Representative of the Estate of
RONALD J. QUIRIN, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 2633 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued three separate
rulings on the motions for summary judgment filed in the case.

In the first ruling, dated Feb. 14, 2014, Judge Gottschall denied
defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, after
determining that a genuine dispute of fact exists as to whether
Crane Co. owed a duty to Ronald J. Quirin and whether Crane Co.'s
products were a proximate cause of his injuries.  A full-text copy
of the Feb. 14 memorandum opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/ddKIchfrom Leagle.com.

In the second ruling, dated Feb. 25, 2014, Judge Gottschall denied
defendants Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose
Company's motions to bar the reports and testimony of Quirin's
expert, Dr. James Millette, and the testimony regarding Kent
cigarettes of Quirin's expert, Dr. Carl Brodkin.  Judge Gottschall
concluded that the evidence in question is admissible under Rule
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).  A full-text copy of Feb. 25
memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/JZWBWa
from Leagle.com.

In the third ruling, dated Feb. 26, 2014, Judge Gottschall denied
Lorillard and H&V's motion for summary judgment, holding that
genuine disputes of fact exist as to whether Mr. Quirin was
exposed to Kent cigarettes that contained asbestos, and as to
whether that exposure was sufficient to be a substantial factor
causing his mesothelioma.  A full-text copy of the Feb. 26
memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/Ny6Bn5
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in "Olds" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled PAUL OLDS,
Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING
COMPANY; et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-08539-R (MRWX)(C.D.
Calif.), Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, issued three separate rulings.

In an order dated Feb. 14, 2014, Judge Real granted defendant
United Technologies Corporation's motion for summary judgment,
after finding that all of the Plaintiff's causes of action against
UTC arising out of his alleged secondary exposure to asbestos as a
result of his mother's work at Pratt & Whitney fail for lack of
causation because: (i) there is no evidence that the Plaintiff's
mother was exposed to asbestos dust as a result of her alleged
work at Pratt & Whitney, (ii) there is no evidence that the
Plaintiff's mother carried asbestos dust home on her body or
clothing from Pratt & Whitney, and (ii) there is no evidence that
the Plaintiff was secondarily exposed to asbestos dust brought
home on the body or clothing of his mother or that the exposure
was a substantial factor in causing his illness.  A full-text copy
of the Feb. 14 Decision is available at http://is.gd/VASeUyfrom
Leagle.com.

In a conclusions of law, dated Feb. 14, 2014, Judge Real granted
defendant Dana Companies, LLC's motion for summary judgment,
holding that, while the Plaintiff contends he can establish that
he worked with Dana gaskets because Cummins engines were used at
the shop he worked for, Cummins used at least nine different
suppliers of gaskets in its engines at the time the Plaintiff
worked at the shop and the fact that Dana was one of nine possible
sources of gaskets to Cummins engines is insufficient to raise a
genuine issue of fact regarding exposure.  A full-text copy of the
second Feb. 14 decision is available at http://is.gd/xC43Arfrom
Leagle.com.

In another conclusions of law, dated Feb. 18, 2014, Judge Real
granted the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Eaton
Aeroquip LLC, as successor by merger to Eaton Aeroquip Inc., after
determining that all of the Plaintiff's causes of action against
Aeroquip fail for lack of causation because Aeroquip presented
undisputed evidence, including the Plaintiff's own deposition
testimony, that the Plaintiff was not exposed to any asbestos-
containing product for which Aeroquip may be liable.  A full-text
copy of the Feb. 18 Decision is available at http://is.gd/zzrWCd
from 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  * * *