CAR_Public/140321.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 57

                             Headlines


AMERICAN PIZZA: Uses Flawed Method for Reimbursement, Driver Says
ASSOCIATION LAW: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ATMEL CORP: Faces "Guerrini" Suit Over Closure of Silicon Plant
BROWN-FORMAN CORP: Sued by Bartender Over Jack Daniels Accident
CARRIER IQ: Wants Court to Approve Arbitration Bid in Privacy Suit

DR. PHONE FIX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Suit Claims
EBAY INC: 9th Circuit Rejects Contract Breach Claims
EOG RESOURCES: Removed "Lawyer" Suit to District of North Dakota
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Check-Cashing Fee Suit Remanded to State Court
FLORIDA: Same-Sex Couples File Suit Over Gay Marriage Ban

FRESH FARMS: Class Seeks to Recover Illinois-Mandated Overtime
GARY MELIUS: Oheka Castle Owner Accused of Cheating on Wages/Tips
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Actions Over Fukushima Disaster
GENERAL MOTORS: Merchant Law Group Commences Recall Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: May Face Criminal Inquiry Over Car Shutdowns

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Suit Over Paxil-Linked Birth Defects
GOOGLE INC: Search Engines Being Linked to Revenge Porn Site
GRACO INC: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
HOFFMAN-LAROCHE: Jury Returns $1.59MM Verdict in Accutane Suit
HOME SHOPPING: Emeril Brand Knives Were Made in China, Not Germany

ITALIAN COLORS: Ban on Swipe Fees Unconstitutional, Retailers Say
JAMES HARDIE: Misrepresents Durability of Siding, Suit Claims
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Parents Get $3MM Award in Topamax Case
JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Final OK of Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
KANGADIS FOOD: Class Action Over Adulterated Olive Oil Can Proceed

L&B INDUSTRIAL: Class Suit Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued Over Unlawful Use of "Esteem" Database
LIFELOCK INC: Faces Arizona Suit Alleging It Defrauded Investors
LITTLE INDIA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Wages
MCDONALD'S CORP: Seven Class Actions Filed Over Wage Theft

MINNESOTA: Attorney Files Class Action Over Driving Classes
MOY TOY: Removed "Eagles" Suit to Middle District of Tennessee
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Limits Aid to College Athletes, Suit Says
NESTLE USA: Alleged Chocolate Cartel Wins Favorable Judgment
NORTHWESTERN MGMT: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Dental Assistant Says

PEPSICO INC: Faces "Sciortino" Suit Over Pepsi's Caramel Coloring
PFIZER INC: Faces "Lemaire" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug
POWER & LIGHT: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination
PUDA COAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
RANCHO FEEDING: Health Officials Issue Recall for Beef Jerky

REAL CHINESE: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid OT Wages
SASKATCHEWAN: SARM Mulls Suit Over Land Transfer Agreements
SEASIDE ROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Laborer Says
SINGAPORE AIRLINES: Settles Class Action in Australia
SONIC DRIVE-IN: Accused of Making Employees Work Off the Clock

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Canterbury Homeowners Attend Meeting
STERLING JEWELERS: Judge Dismisses Gender Discrimination Claim
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over ACTOS, ACTOSplus
TARGET CORP: Faces "Crawford" Suit in Tennessee Over Data Breach
TOYS DISTRIBUTION: Inspectors Found Unsafe Levels of Lead in Toys

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Action v. Secret Service Agents
VERTRUE INC: Webb Klase & Lemond Files Class Action
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Refused to Certify "Karhu" Class
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces New "Mesidor" Discrimination Suit in Fla.

WELLS FARGO: Accused of Violating Labor Laws in California
WHITEHAVEN COAL: Law Firm Examines Grounds for Class Action
WINCO FOODS: Sued by DFEH Director Over FEHA and ADA Violations
ZIMMER INC: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Knee Implant


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Adversary Suits in CP Hall Ch. 11 Case Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Suspects It was Target of Fibro Attys
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Recorded $501-Mil. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $91MM Insurance Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Reserves $90MM for PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Recorded $846.2-Mil Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Resources Has 50 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hokanson" Suit Remanded to N.J. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preference Granted in "Kestenbaum" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankrupt's Suit v. Condo Owner Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Monongahela Insurance Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants in Ala. PI Suits Win Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Affirms Misrepresentation Suit Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Limitations Bar Claims v. Federal-Mogul

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Phillips" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Baldwin" Suit Remanded to Del. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Homeowners' Insurance Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company's Bid to Dismiss "Soucy" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Testimony in Utah PI Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Citrano" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Says Fibro Causes Autoimmune Responses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Slows Down St. Nicholas House Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Drilling Mud Exposure a Concern Years Later
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Reopening of Tyne Tunnels

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Considering Abatement at Windsor Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reclaim Fibro Care Costs Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Denies Writing Letter During Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geologists Take on Key Health Problem
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wantirna Reserve Fenced Off After Fibro Detected

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Half of Coventry Schools Still Contain Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Scare at STATIN, Fibro Found on Premises
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treatment for Fibro-Link Cancer Evaluated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Lincoln Hospital Fibro Clean-up Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dispute at Historic Younkers Bldg. Heats Up

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Death Leads to Lawsuit v. Dupont
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Cannington Resident Fears Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Greyfriars Bus Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Revolutionary Treatment Gives Victims New Life
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pennsylvania Man Files Fibro Exposure Complaint

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Interstate Waste Load Had Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madisonville Bldg. Site of Fibro Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors Hear Late Victim's Testimony in Trial


                             *********


AMERICAN PIZZA: Uses Flawed Method for Reimbursement, Driver Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gassel, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. American Pizza Partners, L.P., American Restaurant
Partners, L.P., and RMC American Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-00291-PAB-BNB (D. Colo., January 31, 2014) is brought by a
former employee of the Defendants, who worked as a delivery driver
at their Pizza Hut restaurant in Greeley, Colorado, from October
2007 to September 2012.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to customers,
Mr. Gassel says.  He contends that instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use
of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides an unreasonably low rate beneath
any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the
federal and Colorado minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

The Defendants operate approximately 130 Pizza Hut franchise
restaurants in seven states including Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma
and Texas.  The Defendants' Pizza Hut restaurants employ delivery
drivers, who all have the same primary job duty: to deliver pizzas
and other food items to customers' homes or workplaces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL McINNES LLP
          2000 Baltimore, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 981-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 981-8101
          E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
                  mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


ASSOCIATION LAW: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie R. Prinsen and Yann M. Balu, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Association Law Group, P.L., a
Florida Professional Limited Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-14047-JEM
(S.D. Fla., February 1, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Garry Rooney, Esq.
          ROONEY AND ROONEY PA
          2145 14th Avenue
          Second Floor, Suite 20
          Historic Courthouse Executive Center
          Vero Beach, FL 32960-4414
          Telephone: (772) 778-5400
          Facsimile: (772) 778-5290
          E-mail: attorneys@rooneyandrooneylaw.com

               - and -

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5321
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
          9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 350-5300
          E-mail: Cody.German@csklegal.com


ATMEL CORP: Faces "Guerrini" Suit Over Closure of Silicon Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S.-based semiconductor manufacturer promoted a straw buyer for
its largest and costliest European plant in order to shut the
facility and duck its responsibility to pay as much as $700
million to laid-off union workers, a class action claims in
Federal Court, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service.

Named plaintiff Jean Yves Guerrini, one of 750 workers at the
Lfoundry Rousset SAS in Rousset, France, claims that the plant
owner, the Atmel Corp. of San Jose, Calif., conspired to
fraudulently sell the silicon wafer facility to a buyer that could
ill afford the investment.

The desired result, Guerrini claims, was to bankrupt the unit so
that Atmel could avoid making redundancy payments to union
employees, as required by French law and the facility's collective
bargaining agreement.

"To affect this plan, board members of Atmel designed a
sophisticated scheme," Guerrini says in the lawsuit.  "First,
Atmel had to choose a co-conspirator that would pose as a serious
and solvent buyer in order to lure the employees of the Rousset
Wafer Unit into accepting to transfer."

This acceptance is a critical part of the firm's collective
redundancy plan.  To advance the scheme, Guerrini claims, Atmel
retained the services of an advisory firm, nonparty ATREG,
specializing in outsourcing in the semiconductor industry.

"Atmel selected the ideal candidate to be its co-conspirator:
Lfoundry GMBH, a company with virtually no experience in the field
of semiconductors and whose affiliate was on the verge of
bankruptcy," Guerrini says.

Named as defendants are Atmel Corp., Atmel Rousset SAS, and
Lfoundry GMBH.

To get the Lfoundry/Rousses workers to go along with the transfer
agreement, Atmel misrepresented the supposed buyer's financial
health, its ability to assume Atmel's obligations under the
collective bargaining agreement, and promised that up to 180 of
the plant's workers would be bought out after the jobs became
redundant and eliminated, according to the 54-page lawsuit.

"In reality, as plaintiffs later discovered, Lfoundry GMBH had
barely any record at all in the semiconductor field and was in a
financially unsound position," Guerrini claims.

He says that in addition to avoiding the costly payments to the
union members who lost their jobs -- a number that would swell
from 180 to 750 with the plant's closure -- Atmel engaged in
several illegal transactions with Lfoundry that would allow it to
strip the shutter facility of all of its assets.

Why go to such lengths?

According to Guerrini, Atmel had taken several steps in recent
years to streamline its manufacturing operations, by selling
several fabricating facilities in the United Kingdom and Germany,
the ultimate goal being to boost its share price and reward its
shareholders.

Initially, he says, the plan was to keep the French manufacturing
plant, which had received $82 million in support from French
public authorities and had contracts with several French
customers, including the French military.

But despite these sales, by the end of 2008, Atmel's stock price
was still a pathetic $3.13.  It was then, Guerrini claims, that
the company's officers decided it needed to get the Rousset plant
off its books.

"However, closing down the Rousset Wafer Unit would have been so
costly that it would have defeated the purpose of a cost-cutting
strategy to increase Atmel's stock price," according to the
complaint.

"Atmel was faced with a dilemma.  On the one hand if it shut down
the wafer-manufacturing until it would have to pay a costly
redundancy plan to the employees that would be terminated.  On the
other hand if it sold the Rousset Wafer Unit to a credible
investor it would create a strong competitor," Guerrini claims.

"That is why Atmel chose not to pursue either of these routes.
Instead Atmel designed a careful plan to dispose of the Rousset
Wafer Unit by fraudulently conveying it to a third party hired to
shut it down.  ATREG's mission was to assist Atmel in finding an
acquirer that could fool the employees of the Rousset Wafer Unit
and lead it to bankruptcy.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendants' enterprise and
wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Lfoundry Rousset (current name of the
Rousset wafer unit) went bankrupt and the class action plaintiff
and the class he seeks to represent have suffered or are about to
suffer damages as a consequence of the termination of their
employment . . . without payment of a collective redundancy plan
to which they were legally entitled."

Guerrini seeks class certification and damages for RICO fraud,
illegal contract, common law fraud, intentional interference with
contract and civil conspiracy.

He also seeks a declaration that the stock purchase agreement
between the alleged conspirators is void because it was entered
into for illegal purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philippe Jean Joseph Pradal, Esq.
          PRADAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          112 W 34th Street
          New York, NY, 14850
          Telephone: (917) 750-3106
          E-mail: contact@pradallaw.com


BROWN-FORMAN CORP: Sued by Bartender Over Jack Daniels Accident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Nies, 403 139th Street, Ocean City, Maryland 21842 v. Brown-
Forman Corporation, P.O. Box 1080, Louisville, KY 40201, Case No.
1:14-cv-00319-GLR (D. Md., January 31, 2014) concerns a personal
injury, specifically, a severe hand injury including laceration,
tendon and nerve damage, and scarring, sustained by the Plaintiff
while he was working as a bartender at The Greene Turtle
restaurant in Ocean City, Maryland.

At the time of his injury, Mr. Nies says he was attempting in
proper fashion to manually open a previously unopened bottle of
Jack Daniels "Old No. 7" Tennessee Whiskey, manufactured and sold
to TGT by the Defendant, for use at the restaurant/bar.  He
alleges that the subject bottle was manufactured in a defective
manner, and contained manufacturing defects at the time it was
sold to TGT.

Brown-Forman Corporation is a Delaware corporation, having its
principal place of business in Kentucky.  The Company is a
diversified manufacturer, producer, and seller of a variety of
consumer brands, including Jack Daniels "Old No. 7" Tennessee
Whiskey.  The Company markets, distributes, and sells its products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Frederick Bright, Esq.
          Kevin Preston Gregory, Esq.
          AYRES JENKINS GORDY AND ALMAND PA
          6200 Coastal Hwy., Suite 200
          Ocean City, MD 21842
          Telephone: (410) 723-1400
          Facsimile: (410) 723-1861
          E-mail: bbright@ajgalaw.com
                  kgregory@ajgalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Anthony Kozlowski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN P. STEBENNE
          100 South Charles Street
          Suite 1101-Tower II
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 752-0575
          Facsimile: (603) 334-7065
          E-mail: mark.kozlowski@libertymutual.com


CARRIER IQ: Wants Court to Approve Arbitration Bid in Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that software
company Carrier IQ and a host of cellphone manufacturers fought to
convince a federal judge on March 12 that a massive privacy class
action should be knocked into arbitration.

The companies argue that plaintiffs' claims must be ejected from
federal court because they signed contracts containing arbitration
clauses when they bought their phones.  But plaintiffs counter
that the contract is irrelevant because it was struck between
consumers and their carriers, which are not defendants in the
case.  They claim the installation of Carrier IQ's tracking
software, which logged keystrokes and other data, violated their
privacy.

Lawyers flooded the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen
on March 12 to argue the motion to compel arbitration in In re
Carrier IQ Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, 12-2330, which both
sides acknowledge would wipe out the multidistrict litigation if
granted.

Sitting around the defense table were attorneys from Fenwick &
West for Carrier IQ; Munger, Tolles & Olson for HTC America;
Covington & Burling for Huawei Devices USA; Greenberg Traurig for
LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.; and Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom for Samsung Telecommunications America.  Lawyers at
Pearson Simon & Warshaw and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro appeared
for the plaintiffs.

Carrier IQ lawyer Rodger Cole, who argued for the defendants, told
Judge Chen that plaintiffs cannot escape arbitration because their
claims against the manufacturers and the Sunnyvale-based software
company are entwined with their service agreements.  The defense
is drawing on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which holds that
plaintiffs cannot cite a contract to bring claims while distancing
themselves from another part of the document.

Although Carrier IQ and the manufacturers were not privy to the
contract, they should be able to invoke the arbitration clause "to
avoid eviscerating the intent of the parties when they entered
into the arbitration agreement," Mr. Cole said.

Judge Chen pushed back against that argument.  He questioned
whether the plaintiffs, who filed statutory claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other laws, were really
trying to have it both ways with their service agreements.  "If
the claim is based on the statute, and there are no contract-based
claims, I'm not sure where the inconsistency would be," he said.

But Mr. Cole warned that such a narrow construction of equitable
estoppel would deal a devastating blow to arbitration agreements.
"Plaintiffs could avoid arbitration agreements just by not
asserting breach-of-contract claims," he said.

Manufacturers installed Carrier IQ's software at the request of
carriers.  But Hagens Berman partner Robert Lopez --
robl@hbsslaw.com -- stressed that the program collected far more
information than what the carriers sought.

"The carriers were looking for very benign sorts of network
diagnostic materials," he said.  "That's why we didn't sue them."
Lopez said the plaintiffs suspect Carrier IQ intercepted messages
in the hopes of eventually selling targeted ads, much like Google
does with its Gmail service.

But Mr. Cole wrote off the allegations about Carrier IQ's conduct
as a "red herring."  "That is not a question before this court
[Wednes] day," he said.  "That is a substantive question that will
be decided in this case by the arbitrator."


DR. PHONE FIX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adriel Angel Robothan, on his own behalf and all similarly
situated individuals v. Dr. Phone Fix, Inc., a Florida profit
corporation, William Daragan, and Timothy Phelps, Case No.
0:14-cv-60262-RNS (S.D. Fla., February 1, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week
but no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made by the
Defendants to properly compensate him at the statutory rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate for those hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week.

Dr. Phone Fix, Inc., is a Florida Foreign Profit corporation.  The
Individual Defendants are residents of Broward County, Florida,
and are managing agents, directors or owners of DR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliot Kozolchyk, Esq.
          KOZ LAW, P.A.
          320 S.E. 9th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (786) 924-9929
          Facsimile: (786) 358-6071
          E-mail: ekoz@kozlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard Celler, Esq.
          CELLER LEGAL GROUP
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


EBAY INC: 9th Circuit Rejects Contract Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that a San Diego
lawyer's claim that virtual auctioneer eBay breaches its contract
with millions of sellers ran into a marble wall on March 12 in a
Ninth Circuit courtroom.

Roy Katriel is trying to bring a class action against eBay Inc. on
the ground that the company helps bidders obtain the lowest sale
price possible, despite promising in its user agreement to remain
neutral in all transactions.

"What they put in the agreement is very specific.  They said, 'We
are not involved in the actual transaction,'" Mr. Katriel told the
court on March 12.  "Now it turns out they are."

Under eBay's process, bidders enter the maximum they're prepared
to bid.  The company's software then discloses only so much as
necessary to beat the previous high bid. So if a user authorizes a
$50 bid, and the previous high bid is only $40, the user gets the
item for $41.  That shortchanges sellers, Mr. Katriel alleges in
Block v. eBay.

There's one glaring problem with his argument.  "Doesn't everybody
who enters a bid on eBay understand what the system is?" Judge
Stephen Reinhardt asked.

Mr. Katriel acknowledged that eBay explains the process, but says
it does so "on some unindexed page" that isn't linked to its user
agreement.  And the user agreement explicitly sets out the
entirety of the agreement, he contended.

Mr. Reinhardt said that he's not personally familiar with eBay,
and Judge Jerome Farris didn't sound like a power seller, either.
But it's clear eBay isn't deceiving anybody, Mr. Farris told
Mr. Katriel.  Besides, "if we do what you're asking us to do,
goodbye eBay, isn't that right?"

No, Mr. Katriel argued, eBay would simply have to amend its user
agreement and reserve the right to act as a proxy.

The third member of the panel, visiting U.S. District Judge Paul
Huck of Florida, sounded even more skeptical than Messrs.
Reinhardt and Farris.  He compared eBay to a mediation neutral
that simply shuttles offers back and forth between parties, with
"no dog in the fight."

But, Mr. Katriel argued, if a party told the mediator, "I'll pay
up to $80, but try to get it for me for less . . . he'd be working
on your behalf."

Cooley partner John Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- representing
eBay, had a far easier time.  In fact, he faced zero questions
during his 10-minute argument.  He said eBay's user agreement
"strongly recommends" that users also read about the automatic
bidding process, which can be accessed via a drop-down menu.  "He
never alleges they were misled about how the automatic bidding
system works," Mr. Dwyer said.

The statement about staying out of the bidding process is only a
limitation of liability that makes clear eBay isn't acting as a
fiduciary like some traditional auction houses, he said.  "What
it's saying is, 'Hey, if you think you're with Christie's or
Sotheby's, you're not.'"


EOG RESOURCES: Removed "Lawyer" Suit to District of North Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Lawyer, et al. v. EOG
Resources, Inc., Case No. 53-2014-CV-00043, was removed from the
Northwest Judicial District, County of Williams, State of North
Dakota to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
(Northwestern).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-
cv-00009-DLH-CSM to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that EOG improperly flared gas and failed to
pay the Plaintiffs and the putative class members royalties on gas
flared from wells operated by EOG in North Dakota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cody L. Balzer, Esq.
          BALZER LAW FIRM, PC
          1302 Cleveland, Ave.
          Loveland, CO 80537
          Telephone: (970) 203-1515
          E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Derrick L. Braaten, Esq.
          Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, Esq.
          BAUMSTARK BRAATEN LAW PARTNERS
          109 N. 4th Street, Suite 100
          Bismarck, ND 58501
          Telephone: (701) 221-2911
          Facsimile: (701) 221-5842
          E-mail: derrick@baumstarkbraaten.com
                  lindsey@baumstarkbraaten.com

               - and -

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
          TARLOW & STONECIPHER, PLLC
          1705 West College Street
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 586-9714
          E-mail: mkelly@lawmt.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lawrence Bender, Esq.
          Michael D. Schoepf, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
          200 North 3rd Street, Suite 150
          P.O. Box 1855
          Bismarck, ND 58502-1855
          Telephone: (701) 221-4020
          E-mail: lbender@fredlaw.com
                  mschoepf@fredlaw.com

               - and -

          Van H. Beckwith, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 953-6500
          E-mail: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Bill Kroger, Esq.
          Jason Newman, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          One Shell Plaza
          910 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 229-1234
          E-mail: bill.kroger@bakerbotts.com
                  jason.newman@bakerbotts.com


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Check-Cashing Fee Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $4 check-cashing fee that Fifth Third Bank charges those who do
not have accounts with them should be handled in a Florida state
court, a federal judge ruled, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News
Service.

Brian McDaniel sued Fifth Third Bank in November 2013, claiming
the bank unlawfully deducts $4 to $10 from checks presented to it
by non-account holders, despite the fact the parties have no
contractual relationship and never agreed to such deductions.

McDaniel, who says he had the fee deducted when he cashed a $75
check at a Fifth Third Bank branch in July 2012, said the bank
must pay or settle a check according to its terms -- in other
words, in full.

Hoping to represent a class, McDaniel sued in the Circuit Court of
Orange County, Fla. Fifth Third Bank removed the case to the
Middle District of Orlando, but U.S. District Judge Gregory
Presnell in Orlando remanded the case.

Because the parties have agreed that compensatory and statutory
damages would not exceed $2.9 million, jurisdiction turns on
whether punitive damages could exceed $2 million, if they are
recoverable at all.

After reviewing McDaniel's claims, Presnell concluded they would
not.

To begin wit, McDaniel's fraud and fraud in inducement claims are
deficient on their face, according to the ruling.

Additionally, the statutory limit on punitive damages under
Florida's Consumer Collection Protection Act is $1.5 million.

"Simply put, McDaniel does not appear to have viable claims, and
the only claims that could result in sufficient punitive damages
to confer federal jurisdiction fail as a matter of law," Presnell
wrote.  "Therefore, McDaniel's motion to remand to state court
must be granted."

Brian McDaniel, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 6:13-cv-01878-
GAP-GJK, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division.


FLORIDA: Same-Sex Couples File Suit Over Gay Marriage Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
eight same-sex couples have filed a federal lawsuit challenging
Florida's refusal to recognize out-of-state marriages, saying it
violates their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit differs from the one filed in January by other gay and
lesbian couples in Miami-Dade Circuit Court that directly
challenges the state ban on gay marriage.

All of the federal plaintiffs are gay couples who were married out
of state.  They include Akerman attorney Richard Milstein and his
partner of 12 years, Eric Hankin, a Miami public schoolteacher.

The lawsuit is being spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Florida and SAVE, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender rights organization based in South Florida.

The lawsuit filed on March 12 in Tallahassee federal court was
assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle, a Clinton
appointee.

"Each of these couples has their own story of how the state's
discriminatory refusal to recognize their marriages has impacted
their lives," said Daniel Tilley, LGBT rights attorney for the
ACLU of Florida.

He said the couples have all the rights and responsibilities of
marriage in the states where they exchanged vows, and the federal
government recognizes their marriages.

"It's time for Florida to stop the harmful practice of treating
committed couples as if they are strangers," Mr. Tilley said.

States that don't recognize gay marriage have faced numerous
lawsuits since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal
Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional last year.

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said,
"Sadly, Florida refuses to recognize those marriages, often at
significant cost to their families."

                      Numerous Challenges

The lead plaintiff is Sloan Grimsley, a firefighter from Palm
Beach Gardens who is married to Joyce Albu, a consultant assisting
parents of children with developmental disorders.

The couple is concerned that if something happened to Sloan in the
line of duty, Albu would not receive the financial support offered
by the state, Mr. Grimsley said.

"I'm proud of the work that I do protecting my community, but the
law in Florida doesn't let me protect my own family," Mr. Grimsley
said.  "We just want the peace of mind of knowing that those vows
we took to care for one another aren't dependent on where we are."

The lawsuit is the latest in a groundswell of challenges in the
divisive gay marriage debate.  In the last month, similar lawsuits
have been filed in Alabama and Indiana.  In Kentucky, a federal
judge ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed
legally in other states and countries.

The lawsuit names Gov. Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi and
other top Florida officials as defendants.  It asks the judge to
declare Florida's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage as an
unconstitutional violation of equal protection and due process
rights.  The lawsuit also asks for a ruling requiring the state to
recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.
A separate lawsuit filed earlier this year in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court challenges the DOMA-based ban on same-sex marriage that
Florida voters added to the state Constitution in 2008.

Kunal Parker, a law professor at the University of Miami School of
Law, said the federal lawsuit is interesting because it doesn't
directly challenge Florida's ban on gay marriage.

"It chips away at the ban," Mr. Parker said.  "But these arguments
really are about equal protection and due process."


FRESH FARMS: Class Seeks to Recover Illinois-Mandated Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Alvirde, Jose Eduardo Alvirde, Octavio Oviedo, Sergio
Moreno, Francisco Ponton Gonzales, Oswaldo Diaz, Javier Olivares,
Victor Hugo Arteaga Castillo, Antonio Rangel, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Fresh Farms International Market, Inc., Dean Svigos,
individually, and Mike Svigos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00715 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
willfully failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees the federal and Illinois-mandated overtime
wages for all time worked.

Fresh Farms International Market is an Illinois Corporation with
its principal place of business in Wheeling, Illinois.  Since at
least 1995, the Defendants have operated at least three Fresh
Farms grocery stores located in Chicago, Wheeling, and Niles,
Illinois.  Fresh Farms is owned and operated by Dean Svigos and
Mike Svigos.  Fresh Farms sells deli and bakery items, produce,
dairy, and groceries that you would find in a local grocery store.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex R. Thiersch, Esq.
          Renee E. Coover, Esq.
          THIERSCH & ASSOCIATES
          180 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 981-0990
          Facsimile: (312) 753-6001
          E-mail: thiersch@thierschlaw.com
                  rcoover@thierschlaw.com

               - and -

          John Moran, Esq.
          Matthew Layman, Esq.
          THE MORAN LAW GROUP
          309 W. Washington, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 630-0200
          E-mail: mtl1981@gmail.com


GARY MELIUS: Oheka Castle Owner Accused of Cheating on Wages/Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of Oheka Castle -- America's second-largest private home
and an inspiration for "The Great Gatsby" -- cheats his workers on
wages and tips, a class action claims in New York Federal Court.
The lawsuit comes a week after the castle's owner was shot in the
head on the castle's grounds by a masked gunman who remains at
large, according to Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service.

Named plaintiff Michael Ernano, who worked as a server and
bartender at the popular wedding destination, sued Gary Melius,
his sons-in-law John Anthony Dipetra and Fabian Santibanez, and
the castle's catering company, Oheka Management Corp.

The castle, which according to the lawsuit is valued at more than
$43 million, was one of the inspirations for F. Scott Fitgerald's
novel and was used as the setting for Orson Welles' 1941 film
"Citizen Kane" as the palatial estate, Xanadu.

With 32 guestrooms, the castle hosts catered events for as many as
400 diners, and can accommodate up to 1,000 guests, according to
the lawsuit.

"Along with the incredible opulence of Oheka Castle comes a hefty
price tag reaping substantial revenues for defendants Gary Melius
and the Oheka Entities," the complaint states.

"On an episode of the reality television program, Bridezillas, one
bride-to-be mortgaged her house in order to finance her fairy tale
wedding at the enchanting Oheka Castle."

According to the complaint, Melius has boasted that revenue came
to $3.6 million in 2011 and hoped to increase that to more than
$3.8 million in 2012.


"Despite earning millions from the labor of their servants, behind
the castle walls," the lawsuit states, Melius and his team "keep
more of those revenues for themselves and cheat workers of wages
and tips."

Ernano claims that he and other workers were not paid for overtime
worked, nor for all the hours they worked, that they were not paid
in a timely manner, and that their tips were stolen.

Ernano claims castle managers required workers to carry over their
overtime hours into subsequent weeks to avoid paying overtime, and
that workers whose hours approached 40 hours in a work week were
required to clock out of their "biometric timekeeping system and
continue working."  Ernano says he was forced to work at least
four shifts without pay during his probationary period.  He claims
that not only did Melius keep cash tips left for him by patrons,
but also pocketed a 22 percent "service charge" that was tacked
onto customers' bills who use the castle's catering services.

"Defendants have led patrons to believe that the service charges
would be paid to the service staff," the lawsuit states.
"However, defendants did not remit any of those charges to the
service staff."

Melius, 69, was in the parking lot of the Long Island castle in
Huntington, N.Y., when he was shot in the head on Feb. 24.  Melius
survived.

Ernano seeks class certification and damages for violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.

Also named as defendants are castle manager Kathy Thompson; Oheka
Management Corp.; Oheka Catering Inc.; Oheka Management LLC; and
Oheka Catering LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          555 5th Avenue, FL 14
          New York, NY 10017-9257


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Actions Over Fukushima Disaster
-------------------------------------------------------------
UPI reports that two class-action lawsuits have been filed in New
York City against General Electric Co. over the Fukushima nuclear
disaster in Japan, court documents show.

In one case, lead plaintiff Mitsuru Okura alleges GE and GE-
Hitachi failed to properly design, build and maintain the nuclear
power plant destroyed by the 9.0-magnitude earthquake and
subsequent tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011, Courthouse
News Service reported on March 12.

A summons and notice filed in New York County Supreme Court seeks
compensatory damages of at least $3 million per plaintiff.  The
filing did not state the number of people included in the class
but the news service noted more than 100,000 people were evacuated
following the disaster.

Mr. Okura alleges that because of the companies' negligence and
recklessness, he and other class members suffered "personal
injury, mental anguish, emotional distress, property damage,
business interruption, loss of business, loss of income, economic
injuries, and ongoing long-term physical, mental and emotional
health problems," the document states.

Besides GE, Mr. Okura served notice to GE-Hitachi Energy Holdings
LLC, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC, GE-Hitachi Nuclear
Energy International and ABC Corps. 1-50, Courthouse News Service
said.

The second case was brought against the same defendants by Sasaki
Body Ltd. and Mihana Ltd.  It seeks $5 million in damages per
class member.


GENERAL MOTORS: Merchant Law Group Commences Recall Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP commenced a Canada-wide class action on
March 13 against General Motors, concerning the recent recall of
an ignition-switch affecting 1.6 million GM vehicles worldwide and
allegedly linked to 13 accidental deaths.

"The ignition switch defect is a widespread problem affecting more
than 235,000 General Motors vehicles in Canada.  Owners of these
GM vehicles are at risk and can experience a sudden unexpected
loss of power and engine shut down due to the ignition defect
alleged by this class action.  Our class action seeks compensation
for affected vehicle owners and proper repair of these GM
vehicles," stated Tony Merchant, Q.C., earlier on March 13.

In part, this national class action asserts that these GM vehicles
suffer from a design defect which puts drivers at risk of the
ignition switch disengaging from the "ON" position to the "OFF"
position while driving, resulting in:

     a) loss of electrical power,

     b) loss of power-steering function,

     c) loss of electrical brake-assisting,
        and/or

     d) loss of air-bag function.

For more information on the GM Ignition Class Action (whether
engine shut down has been experienced or not), please visit:
https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/gmignition.php

GM Models affected by the ignition switch defect include:

     2005 to 2004 Chevrolet Cobalt

     2006 to 2007 Chevrolet HHR

     2005 to 2007 Pontiac G5

     2006 to 2007 Pontiac Solstice

     2003 to 2007 Saturn Ion

     2006 to 2007 Saturn Sky

Merchant Law Group LLP is a Canadian class action firm, with 12
offices across Canada from Montreal to Victoria.  Merchant Law
Group LLP is well known for pursuing class action lawsuits in
Canada including litigation regarding GM Gasket Manifolds, Hip
Implants, Vioxx, Hollinger, Residential Schools, and various other
cases.  Tony Merchant is known to be one of Canada's most active
litigators with more than 600 reported cases in leading Case Law
Journals, having argued thousands of cases before the Canadian and
American Courts, in Trial and Administrative Courts, and the
Courts of Appeal of various American and Canadian jurisdictions,
the Federal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tony Merchant, Q.C., has a long history in pursuing public policy
cases and is a former elected Member of the Legislative Assembly
(M.L.A.)


GENERAL MOTORS: May Face Criminal Inquiry Over Car Shutdowns
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Michael Millikin, General Motors Co.'s general counsel, now has a
new problem to contend with -- a possible criminal inquiry by the
U.S. Department of Justice into the timeliness of GM's response to
consumer complaints of sudden and sometimes-fatal car shutdowns.

Under the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and
Documentation Act of 2000, known as the TREAD Act, an auto company
can face criminal penalties if it does not report to regulators a
defect that led to serious injury or death within five days of
learning of the incident.

Bloomberg News reported the opening of the DOJ inquiry earlier
this week, based on unnamed sources.  And The New York Times
corroborated the investigation on March 12, according to its own
sources.

But GM spokesman Alan Adler told CorpCounsel.com on March 13, "We
have not been informed of a Justice Department investigation."

It wasn't as though Mr. Millikin didn't have plenty to deal with
already, related to a defective ignition switch that resulted in
what GM now says were 12 deaths and numerous crashes and injuries.
GM has recalled 1.6 million cars to repair the problem.  Details
are in its recall letter.

The DOJ inquiry goes atop Mr. Millikin's already sizable inbox:
Earlier last week, GM named Mr. Millikin and outside counsel
Anton Valukas -- avalukas@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block to lead
an internal investigation into how the company handled complaints
about the defect that may have begun as early as 2001.

The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration has opened
an investigation into why GM took so long to admit and fix the
problem.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has opened an
investigation into why GM and NHTSA took so long to address the
problem.

Plaintiffs lawyers across the country are lining up aggrieved
clients to sue GM, which until now has been steadily recovering
from its 2009 bankruptcy and government bailout.

The lawsuits could be an especially sticky problem for
Mr. Millikin and GM.  Under the bankruptcy restructuring, the "new
GM" accepted no responsibility for prebankruptcy defects or
repairs, which remained with the "old GM."

Experts are saying suits over the decade-old ignition defect could
throw GM's bankruptcy into question and reopen liability issues
the company thought it had put to rest, according to a story in
Wednesday's New York Times.

If GM knew about the ignition switch defect at the time and didn't
disclose it, or the potential for litigation over it, then, "You
open up the bankruptcy and start all over again," John Pottow, a
lawyer specializing in bankruptcy and business law at the
University of Michigan Law School, told the Times.

GM's Adler said on March 13, "We have no comment on any matters in
litigation."

Some auto-safety advocates are urging GM to avoid this particular
issue by waiving its postbankruptcy immunity, according to a story
in the March 12 USA Today.  Clarence Ditlow, who runs the Center
for Auto Safety, and John Claybrook, a former head of NHTSA, have
asked GM to set up a $1 billion fund to cover the ignition
liability, the story said.

Meanwhile, bipartisan leaders of the House committee scrutinizing
the company's conduct have written a letter to GM management
seeking more information on the ignition problem.

The letter asks the company to brief committee staff members by
March 18, and to deliver requested documents by March 25.  Among
items being requested are all field reports related to the
ignitions, all related documents submitted to NHTSA, a detailed
time line of all related communications between GM and NHTSA, and
all communications to or from GM related to the ignitions.

And every day seems to bring a new revelation.  Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx was asked about the GM situation during
budget testimony before a Senate appropriations subcommittee on
March 13.  He said GM hadn't given federal regulators enough data
to open a formal investigation, but vowed that NHTSA is
"conducting an ongoing aggressive investigation into the timing of
the recall," according to the Detroit News.

With GM under such heavy scrutiny, Mr. Millikin probably shouldn't
plan a vacation any time soon.

                 Boyer Named New Global Safety Head

The Associated Press reports that General Motors named a new head
of global safety on March 18 as part of its ongoing effort to
repair the damage from last month's recall of 1.6 million small
cars.  The company has admitted it knew about defective ignition
switches 11 years ago but failed to recall the cars until now.
The problem has been linked to more than a dozen deaths.

Here is some background on GM's new vice president of global
vehicle safety.

NAME: Jeffrey Boyer

AGE: 58

EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, General
Motors Institute (now Kettering University), 1979; master of
business administration, Michigan State University, 1993.

CAREER: Boyer joined GM in 1974 as a co-op student and has held
various engineering and leadership positions at the company.  Most
recently, he served as director of engineering operations and
systems development, 2011-present; executive director of global
interior engineering and safety performance, 2006-2011; and
executive director of advanced purchasing, 2004-2006.

FAMILY: Wife Dianne; three sons.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Suit Over Paxil-Linked Birth Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that an
Ohio woman claims in a newly filed products liability suit that
her child was born with infant respiratory distress syndrome and a
ventricular septal defect, diagnoses she blames on the fact that
she took the antidepressant drug Paxil during pregnancy.

Kathryn Kiker, who resides in Columbus, OH, is suing drugmaker
GlaxoSmithKline over claims that her child's birth defects are
directly attributed to the defendant's medication.

The medication "paroxetine," which is marketed under the brand
name Paxil, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that was
first approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug
Administration back in 1992 for the treatment of depression in
adults.

The drug, however, has never been approved by the FDA for use by
pregnant women, the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiff says her family physician prescribed her the
pharmaceutical, which she continued to ingest while she was
pregnant with her child, identified in the suit only as "C.S."
She gave birth to C.S. in the spring of 2001, records show.

"At the time Paxil was prescribed to Mrs. Kiker, GSK knew through
pre-market studies and post-marketing studies and reports that
Paxil was associated with a significant increased risk of cardiac
birth defects in babies whose mothers ingested Paxil during
pregnancy," the complaint reads.  "Notwithstanding this knowledge,
GSK aggressively and actively promoted Paxil for use with pregnant
women."

The drug company, the lawsuit alleges, encouraged its sales force
to promote Paxil to pregnant women and touted the medication as
being a safer alternative to other similar drugs for women who
were pregnant.

"Indeed, GSK even suggested that Paxil was safer and more
efficacious than other SSRIs on the market, such as Prozac and
Zoloft," the complaint states.  "In fact, none of this was true."

The defendant's "illegal and improper" marketing of drugs such as
Paxil were done to give a "false impression of both the safety and
efficacy of the drug to the medical community, prescribing doctors
and patients," the lawsuit says.

The complaint goes on to allege that GSK did not begin to inform
doctors of the serious risk associated with Paxil until September
2005, when third party research was released showing the
association between Paxil and cardiac birth defects.

The complaint says that prior to Mrs. Kiker's pregnancy with C.S.,
the defendant had the "knowledge, the means and the duty to
provide the medical community and the consuming public with a
stronger warning regarding the association between Paxil and birth
defects through all means necessary including but not limited to
labeling, continuing education, symposiums, posters, sales calls
to doctors, advertisements and promotional materials, etc. GSK
breached this duty."

The suit contains counts of negligence and negligence per se,
negligent pharmaco-vigilance, strict liability, failure to warn,
breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, negligent design, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of unfair trade practices and
consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified past and future general damages
and economic damages, earnings losses, medical expenses, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiff is being represented by attorneys Bryan F. Aylstock
and R. Jason Richards of the Pensacola, FL firm Aylstock, Witkin,
Kreis & Overholtz.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01445-CMR.


GOOGLE INC: Search Engines Being Linked to Revenge Porn Site
------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that after suing a
"revenge porn" site in a class action, a Texas woman is going
after Yahoo and Google in Federal Court, for allegedly linking to
sexually explicit images of her.

Hollie Toups, sued the search engine operators March 6, 2014, in
Beaumont, Texas, Federal Court.  She also sued the Web site
myex.com.

In January 2013, Toups and 15 other women sued Texxxan.com and web
host GoDaddy.com, among others, in Orange County (Texas) Court.
The women alleged their intimate photos and private facts were
published on Texxxan.com without authorization and that the site
is "significantly designed to cause severe embarrassment,
humiliation, and emotional distress to all of the women
plaintiffs."  The class claimed Texxan.com served no useful,
social or economic purpose -- that it was "merely a blight upon
society and a sick, cowardly enterprise."

Orange County Court Judge Buddie Hanh blocked the relaunching of
the site three months later, issuing a temporary injunction.

In the new lawsuit, Toups claims Yahoo and Google continue to host
and/or link to photographs to which she holds copyrights.

"Toups has provided proper notice to each of these defendants,
requesting that they take down all links that would show these
copyrighted photos, and all images showing these copyrighted
images," the complaint states.  "All of the defendants refuse to
do so, despite receiving proper notice and a demand to do so."

Yahoo and Google did not immediately respond to requests for
comment March 6 evening.

Toups seeks damages for breach of copyright and a permanent
injunction that stops the hosting and linking of the images.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Morgan, Esq.
          2175 North St.
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 239-5984


GRACO INC: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Karne O. Newburn, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery, reports that on
March 11, 2014, Judge Ann Montgomery of the District of Minnesota
dismissed a putative antitrust class action against Graco Inc. and
its distributors that accused Graco of buying two of its closest
competitors in the spray foam equipment market for the purposes of
raising prices and reducing product options.  Insulate SB Inc. v.
Abrasive Products & Equipment et al., case number 0:13-cv-02664.
The plaintiff alleged that after Graco purchased its rivals, it
conspired with its distributors to boycott competitors.  The
lawsuit followed Graco's FTC settlement which bars it from
pressuring distributors into not carrying its competitors'
equipment products.  The court held that the plaintiff's
allegations, which occurred four years prior to filing the suit,
were barred by the statute of limitations, and that even if the
claims were not time-barred, the plaintiff's allegations were
speculative and conclusory.  The court also dismissed the
plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, finding the remedy
drastic for the situation and stating that "Graco's acquisition
occurred over five years ago, and divestiture would impose obvious
hardship on Graco employees and distributors."


HOFFMAN-LAROCHE: Jury Returns $1.59MM Verdict in Accutane Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a New Jersey jury on March 11 returned a $1.59 million verdict for
a woman who developed bowel disease after using the acne drug
Accutane -- the seventh plaintiff victory in as many suits against
the manufacturers that have been tried to conclusion.

The Atlantic County jury found after a month-long trial that the
drug's makers, Hoffman-LaRoche and Roche Laboratories, failed to
provide plaintiff Kamie Kendall Ries with adequate warning of the
health risks.

Ms. Ries, of Salt Lake City, who began using Accutane at the age
of 12 in the 1990s, later developed ulcerative colitis and had to
have her colon removed.

The suit heartened attorneys for plaintiffs in the roughly 7,000
Accutane cases pending in New Jersey and elsewhere.

The latest verdict affirms that "Accutane's role as a cause of
ulcerative colitis is a settled issue," says plaintiff lawyer
David Buchanan -- dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss in
New York.  "Roche's continued denials in the face of seven juries
in New Jersey, and one in Florida, stating otherwise is a
continuing insult to the many who have who have already suffered
so much due to this drug."

Ms. Ries, like the other plaintiffs, contends that Accutane was
sold with an inadequate warning of the risk of colitis.  In
Ms. Ries' case, The jury's finding that the inadequacy of warnings
extended to 1998, when Ms. Ries was prescribed Accutane, will help
plaintiffs in future cases, says Mr. Buchanan's co-counsel,
Michael Hook of Hook Bolton in Pensacola, Fla.

Roche spokeswoman Tara Iannuccillo said, "We are disappointed in
the verdict in light of the clear Accutane warnings and the
science showing no link between Accutane and inflammatory bowel
disease.  Roche intends to appeal."

With Roche not talking settlement, the plaintiffs will seek to
streamline the litigation through motion practice and trying more
cases together in the future, Mr. Buchanan says.

The verdict comes after a $10.5 million award in 2008 was
overturned in 2010.  The Appellate Division found that Superior
Court Judge Carol Higbee improperly restricted the defense from
presenting statistics about the total numbers of Accutane users.
Roche then took the case to the Supreme Court on a statute of
limitations issue, and the court held that the suit was timely
filed.

Of the eight Accutane trials in New Jersey, one of the eight ended
in a hung jury in December 2011.  In each of the other seven,
including Ms. Ries' case, juries found Roche failed to provide
adequate working of the risk of bowel disease Of 13 plaintiffs in
those seven cases, nine received monetary awards.  The other four
were found not to have proven proximate cause.

Two other plaintiff verdicts have been overturned.
Andrew McCarrell saw his 2007 verdict for $2.6 million vacated but
he won almost ten times that much, $25 million, in a second trial
in 2010.

An $11.8 million verdict for three plaintiffs from Florida --
Lance Sager, Jordan Speisman and Kelly Mace -- was reversed in
2012 based on an application of Florida law on proximate cause.
The appeals court cited testimony by the three prescribing
physicians that a stronger label warning would not have kept them
from prescribing Accutane.

It's been nearly nine years since all New Jersey suits alleging
Accutane has a link to bowel disease were centralized before
Higbee.

Over time, she has rankled Roche lawyers, both in her rulings and
in her demeanor, which they say have demonstrated partiality
toward the plaintiffs.

In 2012, Roche sought to have her disqualified, citing her
comments about the litigation at a defense bar conference and her
criticism of the company for not settling.  The Supreme Court
denied the request this past January.

Lead defense counsel on the case are Orlando Richmond Sr. of --
orlando.richmond@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow in Jackson,
Mississippi; Russell Hewit of Dughi Hewit Domalewski in Cranford;
Paul Schmidt -- pschmidt@cov.com -- of Covington & Burlington in
Washington; and Michelle Bufano -- mbufano@gibbonslaw.com -- of
Gibbons in Newark.


HOME SHOPPING: Emeril Brand Knives Were Made in China, Not Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Home Shopping Network, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Emeril's
Homebase, et al., claim their Emeril brand kitchen knives are made
in Solingen, Germany, though they are made in China.


ITALIAN COLORS: Ban on Swipe Fees Unconstitutional, Retailers Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Retailers sued California, Texas and Florida, claiming state laws
prohibiting "swipe fee" surcharges for credit card purchases are
unconstitutional, as they have the same effect as offering a
"discount" for using cash: the only difference is in the speech,
reports Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Small businesses in California, Texas and Florida filed separate
federal complaints against their states, claiming that laws
prohibiting credit card surcharges violate the First Amendment and
are unconstitutionally vague.  The plaintiffs claim that a federal
judge already has struck down as unconstitutional a similar law in
New York.

The separate lawsuits filed in Sacramento, Austin and Tallahassee
federal courts make similar claims.

"Every time a consumer uses a credit card to make a purchase, the
merchant incurs a fee -- known colloquially as a 'swipe fee,'"
lead plaintiff Italian Colors Restaurant says in its lawsuit
against California Attorney General Kamala Harris.  "These fees
are typically passed on to all consumers in the form of higher
prices for goods and services.  Both state and federal law,
however, permit merchants to pass swipe fees on to only those
consumers who pay with credit cards.  Merchants may do so by
charging two different prices depending on how the consumer pays:
a higher price for using a credit card, and a lower price for
using other payment methods (cash, a personal check, or a debit
card).  But, in California, merchants may engage in dual pricing
only if they communicate the difference between the cash price and
the credit price using the right language: A California law allows
merchants to offer 'discounts' for using cash or a debit card, yet
makes it illegal to impose 'surcharges' for using a credit card --
even though the conduct in both cases (the use of dual pricing) is
the same.

"That 'virtually incomprehensible distinction between what a
vendor can and cannot tell its customers' has already caused one
federal court to strike down New York's indistinguishable statute
as an impermissible restriction on free speech and as
unconstitutionally vague. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman,
- F. Supp. 2d -, 2013 WL 5477607, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013).  And
the only other federal court to consider state no-surcharge laws
has signaled its agreement, calling the statutes 'anti-consumer'
and 'irrational,' and finding 'good reason to believe'" that the
remaining no-surcharge laws will be overturned.  In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., - F.
Supp. 2d -, 2013 WL 6510737, *19-*20 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2013).

"California's no-surcharge law, CAL. CIV. CODE Section 1748.1, is
no different.  Like New York's, it violates the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution and is unconstitutionally vague.  The
plaintiffs are merchants who seek a declaration that the law is
unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the State of
California from enforcing the law against them."

A credit surcharge and a cash discount are "identical in every way
except one: the label that the merchant uses to communicate that
price difference," the law suit states.

The retailers and small businesses say these labels matter because
consumers react differently to surcharges and discounts, even if
the ultimate pricing information is the same.

"In one study, 74 percent of consumers had a negative or strongly
negative reaction to credit surcharges, while fewer than half had
a negative or strongly negative reaction to cash discounts. That
difference -- the difference in how the same pricing information
is understood by consumers -- influences their behavior, making
'surcharges' a much more effective way to communicate the costs of
credit to consumers," the complaint states.

Italian Colors Restaurant, a family business in Oakland, has found
that patrons are generally sympathetic when they learn about the
high cost of swipe fees on small businesses and may take that
information into account when buying goods and services elsewhere,
the lawsuit states.

California's no-surcharge law was enacted in 1985, at the urging
of the credit card industry.  Around the same time, the major
credit card companies changed their contracts with merchants to
include no-surcharge rules, according to the complaint.

However, under the terms of a national class action settlement in
January 2013, Visa and MasterCard agreed to drop their contractual
no-surcharge rules.  In December 2013, in response to a class
action lawsuit initiated by Italian Colors Restaurant, American
Express also agreed to drop its surcharge ban.

"As a result, state no-surcharge laws -- previously redundant
because of contractual no-surcharge rules -- have now gained added
importance.  And as they did in the 1980s, credit-card companies
are once again seeking to discourage dual pricing by pushing state
legislation that dictates the labels that merchants can use for
such systems," the complaint states.

Small businesses in California cannot take full advantage of the
victories against the credit card companies because they are still
not allowed to label the cost differences between credit and cash
purchases as a surcharge under California's no-surcharge law, the
lawsuit states.

Although the law allows dual pricing, it does not convey the costs
of credit to consumers and is so vague that many businesses are
afraid to have any dual pricing at all for fear of running afoul
of the law, the lawsuit states.

"The upshot, then, is that merchants end up passing on swipe fees
to all consumers by raising the prices of goods and services
across the board.  This means that consumers are unaware of how
much they pay for credit and have no incentive to reduce their
credit-card use because they will pay the same price regardless.
As a result, swipe fees have soared.

"Swipe fees thus function as an invisible tax, channeling vast
amounts of money from consumers to some of the nation's largest
banks and credit-card companies," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs in all three states seek declarations that each state's
no-surcharge law is unconstitutional and an injunction enjoining
enforcement.

The California businesses are represented by:

          Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
          465 California Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 438-4515
          Facsimile: (415) 434-4505
          E-mail: ezusman@mzclaw.com


JAMES HARDIE: Misrepresents Durability of Siding, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Schindler v. James Hardie Building Products, Inc., Case No.
0:14-cv-00285-MJD (D. Minn., January 31, 2014) arises from the
Company's sale of fiber cement exterior siding ("Siding").

James Hardie Building Products, Inc. manufactured, advertised,
sold, and distributed the Siding throughout the United States for
installation on homes, commercial buildings, and other structures.
The Siding was installed on the Plaintiff's home and remains there
as of January 31, 2014.

Mr. Schindler contends that James Hardie's Siding has not lived up
to its representations and, given the early and severe
deterioration that requires unexpected maintenance and premature
repair and replacement, has not proven to be of value when
compared to other siding products.  He adds that the Company also
failed to use an appropriate primer for the Siding at the time of
manufacture, which exacerbates or accelerates the cracking,
flaking, delamination, and discoloration problems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  riebekh@locklaw.com
                  samoriarity@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Jacob Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  jpolakoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 982-1776
          Facsimile: (415) 576-1776
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Frances Baillon, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK MILLER & WANTA, LLP
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2955
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  febaillon@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Parents Get $3MM Award in Topamax Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the parents of a child born with a cleft lip and palate linked to
the mother's use of the anti-seizure drug Topamax during pregnancy
have received a $3 million jury award in a failure-to-warn case in
Philadelphia.

The jury's award March 7 in Anderson v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
marks the third Topamax-related verdict issued against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that
manufactures the drug.

The 12-person jury handed up the verdict in Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas Judge Ramy I. Djerassi's courtroom.

One of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case,
Rosemary Pinto of Philadelphia-based Feldman & Pinto, said that
four Topamax cases have gone to trial in Philadelphia so far, and
the three that have resulted in awards for the plaintiffs ended up
in the multimillion-dollar range.

The other cases that rendered verdicts were Powell v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, producing an $11 million award Nov. 18, and
Czimmer v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which resulted in
a $4 million award Oct. 31.

Ms. Pinto, who noted that she is involved in approximately 40 to
50 additional Topamax cases in Philadelphia, said it was likely
that the string of verdicts would prompt a greater willingness on
behalf of the defendants to settle.

"It's reasonable to conclude that parties will come together after
these verdicts," Ms. Pinto said.  "I would hope that Johnson &
Johnson would accept responsibility and that we won't have to have
any more trials."

Drinker Biddle & Reath attorney Kenneth Murphy --
Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- represented Janssen in Anderson and
declined to comment.

Plaintiffs attorney Claudine Q. Homolash, who handles products
liability cases, observed that the verdicts might cause a change
in Janssen's attitude toward taking Topamax cases to trial.
Ms. Homolash was not involved in the Anderson litigation.

"I think the fact that there have been three plaintiffs verdicts
in the Topamax litigation should cause Johnson & Johnson and
Janssen some serious concern," Ms. Homolash said, which may cause
them "to revisit how they want to handle some of these cases."

In terms of Janssen's defense arguments in the Topamax cases,
Ms. Homolash said, "From my understanding, the defense is that
it's the mother's fault, and that defense doesn't appear to be
working."

Several products liability defense attorneys outside of the
Topamax litigation declined to offer comments on the issue.

The jury in Anderson divided the verdict into $1.5 million for
non-economic losses and $1.5 million for future health care
expenses.  Ms. Pinto said she could not comment as to whether
there were any pretrial settlement offers.

Plaintiffs Kelly Anderson and her husband argued in their pretrial
memorandum that Anderson's ingestion of Topamax during the first
trimester of her pregnancy caused their baby's birth defects.

Ms. Anderson, who took Topamax to treat her migraine headaches,
learned she was pregnant Dec. 26, 2007.  Court papers said that
Anderson called her neurologist, Dr. Veronica Sosa, to discuss
tapering off, but not eliminating, her Topamax use with the belief
that her migraines would improve during pregnancy.

Court papers said that Mrs. Anderson's obstetrician told her that
Topamax was safe to take during pregnancy.

The plaintiffs argued Janssen did not adequately warn about the
potential risks associated with Topamax until the label was
changed in March 2011.  The plaintiffs alleged that Janssen knew
about the risk of birth defects associated with Topamax as early
as a decade before the label change, as evidenced by internal
Janssen documents.

Janssen employees also acknowledged Topamax's potential to cause
birth defects, court papers said, pointing to the testimony of
Cathy Ellis, who served as Janssen's associate director of
regulatory affairs.

"She testified that based on preclinical information at the time,
Topamax 'was known to cause some birth defects' in humans as early
as 1996," court papers said.

However, Janssen's experts testified that it is uncertain as to
whether exposure to Topamax during pregnancy causes birth defects,
court papers said.

In the defendant's pretrial memorandum, Janssen said that one of
Mrs. Anderson's doctors informed her of the potential risks
associated with taking Topamax during pregnancy and that
Ms. Anderson "repeatedly refused" to go off the drug, despite her
doctor's warnings.

Additionally, the defendant argued that Dr. Sosa knew of the risks
Topamax potentially posed when it was labeled as a pregnancy
Category C drug before it was changed to Category D, and informed
Mrs. Anderson to stop taking Topamax during pregnancy.

"Accordingly, Dr. Sosa knew of and understood the precise warnings
of which [the] plaintiffs complain," defense papers said.
"Janssen's warnings were, therefore, adequate."

Janssen maintained that a change to a different warning label for
Topamax would not have affected Mrs. Anderson's decision to remain
on the drug because she relied on the advice of her obstetrician
or she needed the drug for relief of her migraine symptoms.

"Mrs. Anderson's conduct, such as her failure to heed the warnings
Janssen provided with Topamax and/or heed the warnings concerning
the drug's side effects provided by her prescribing physicians,
not only prevents [the] plaintiffs from meeting their burden of
proof, but also demonstrates Mrs. Anderson herself was negligent,"
defense papers said.

Ms. Pinto reiterated that juries have found in three trials that
Topamax is a teratogen, a substance that causes birth defects, and
that its warnings aren't strong enough.

"This third verdict shows that Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's
defensive strategy of placing the blame on the mothers and the
doctors is not going to work," Ms. Pinto said.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Final OK of Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On top of a $300 million settlement related to force-placed hazard
insurance, JPMorgan Chase owes more than $20 million in attorneys'
fees, reports Deshayla Strachan at Courthouse News Service, citing
a federal court ruling.

Salvatore Saccoccio represents a class of 762,390 people who
claimed that the bank forced borrowers to buy inflated insurance
policies in a scheme with a company called Assurant.

The 2012 complaint alleged that Chase let Assurant force new
coverage on the properties of borrowers in the event of a lapse or
detection of insufficient coverage, in exchange for having
Assurant insure its entire mortgage portfolio.

Assurant paid Chase commissions on these policies, but the class
said they were actually kickbacks. . . . alleged subsidiaries to
cover its entire mortgage portfolio. In exchange for this policy,
Chase granted Assurant the exclusive right to force new coverage
on borrowers' properties in the event of lapse or the detection of
insufficient coverage.  In turn, Assurant provided with
commissions or "kickbacks" on the policies and entered into
exclusive reinsurance agreements with Chase.

In July 2013, Chase agreed to pay $300 million to Saccoccio and
the class of 762,390.  It includes the class member will recover
12.5 percent of the net premium charged, less any refund made to
them during the period.

The settlement also imposes a six-year injunction against Chase
and Assurant from inflating premiums imposed on mortgagors.

U.S. District Judge Frederico Moreno gave the deal, which carries
an additional $20 million for class counsel, preliminary approval
in October and granted final approval.

The 27-page opinion rejects 16 objections to the settlement,
including one challenge to the process of having class members
submit claims to receive compensation.  Submitting claims is
appropriate since the defendants said they would need a thousand
people a month to identify class members by manually reviewing
files.

Saccoccio will take home a $5,000 service award, according to the
ruling.

The settlement agreement covers all borrowers nationwide who had a
hazard insurance policy force-placed on residential property by
Chase between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 4, 2013, who either paid the
premium of the policy to Chase or were charged a premium and still
owe at least some portion of the premium.

Force-placed insurance lawsuits have rocked banks like Chase
across the country.

The ability to force-place hazard insurance is a typical clause in
most mortgage loan contracts, as it is considered a method of
protecting the lender's interest in the secured property.

In these cases, borrowers claim that the insurance provides a
financial benefit to the banks or their affiliates and at rates
that far exceed borrower-purchased hazard insurance, while
providing substantially less coverage.

A pending multidistrict litigation against five lenders, including
Bank of America, CitiBank, Wells Fargo, HSBC Bank and Chase also
accused the banking giants of forced-placed insurance.

Judge Moreno noted that the case against Chase and Assurant was
spun off from one against five lenders.

The case is Salvatore Saccoccio, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., et al., Case No. 13-21107-CIV-MORENO, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division.


KANGADIS FOOD: Class Action Over Adulterated Olive Oil Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for National Law Journal, reports that
consumers who bought what they thought was 100 percent pure olive
oil that allegedly contained a far cheaper substitute can press on
with their class action against Kangadis Food Inc., a federal
judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New
York refused to grant summary judgment to Kangadis on March 5, and
certified the plaintiffs as a class.  The case is Joseph Ebin v.
Kangadis Food Inc.

The plaintiffs contend they and uncounted others in New York, New
Jersey and perhaps other states relied on the "100 Percent Olive
Oil" labels that appeared on five sides of the Capatriti tins in
deciding to purchase the product.

The complaint alleges that a scientific analysis of the contents
found not pure olive oil but an industrially processed substance
known as olive pomace oil, produced from olive pits and leftover
skins and treated with chemical solvents to produce a largely
tasteless oil that is higher in trans fats and lower in
antioxidents.  Pomace oil is also about half as costly as pure
olive oil, the judge's memorandum says.

The plaintiffs allege that Kangadis, a food import and
distribution company, violated consumer protection laws and
committed breaches of warranties.

In its argument for summary judgment, Kangadis argued that pomace
is, legally, olive oil and that plaintiffs cannot prove the tins
they purchased did not contain 100 percent pure olive oil.


L&B INDUSTRIAL: Class Suit Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that L&B Industrial and Apache
Energy Services LLC, dba AES Safety Services, stiffed workers for
overtime, paid less than minimum wage and violated other labor
laws, a class action claims in Texas Federal Court.


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued Over Unlawful Use of "Esteem" Database
------------------------------------------------------------
G. Tsang, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.; and First
Advantage Background Services, Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00493-DMR
(N.D. Cal., January 31, 2014) arises out of the alleged ownership,
operation, and unlawful use of the "Esteem" "retail theft
contributory database" by the Defendants, and the unlawful use of
Esteem consumer reports by retail merchant members of the Esteem
database, all to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the Class.

The Esteem database is a database comprised exclusively of
information derived from the input of participating retail
merchants, specifically their detention records for alleged
incidents of shoplifting, fraud, and theft.  The vast majority, if
not all, of the detention records in the database relate to
alleged crimes that were never criminally prosecuted and for which
no criminal conviction ever resulted.  First Advantage purchased
the Esteem database from LexisNexis in early 2013.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a Georgia corporation
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  First Advantage Background
Services Corp. is a corporation headquartered and incorporated in
the state of Florida.  The Defendants have done business in the
state of California by, among other things, providing consumer
reports, including consumer reports at issue in this litigation,
to California employers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Carey G. Been, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com
                  eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  cbeen@kellergrover.com


LIFELOCK INC: Faces Arizona Suit Alleging It Defrauded Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock Inc. defrauded investors, a class action claims in
Arizona Federal Court, reports Courthouse News Service.


LITTLE INDIA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Torralba, Alejandro Zacatenco, On behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated v. Little India Stores Inc., Little
India Grocery Inc., Sushma Gupta, Shipra Doe, and Rajan Doe, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00595-RMB (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) alleges that
the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants
for their work, and for overtime work for which the Plaintiffs did
not receive overtime pay.

The Defendants owned and operated the Little India Stores during
the relevant period.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Adam Butnick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA A. BUTNICK P.C.
          40 Wall St., 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 362-1197
          E-mail: JButnick@Butnicklaw.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Seven Class Actions Filed Over Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Scuiletti, writing for PBS, reports that on March 13, seven
class-action lawsuits were filed against McDonald's by employees
who allege the company has committed wage theft violations.

The suits, filed in New York, California and Michigan, claim the
fast food giant made employees work off the clock, reduced hours
on time cards and refused to pay workers for overtime.  Additional
claims specific to some of the suits allege that some workers were
not getting timely brakes, receiving reimbursement for uniform
cleaning or were not paid until customers came into the store --
even if the employees had been there earlier.

If the allegations are true, such actions would stand in violation
of the Federal Labor Standards Act, which, according to the
Department of Labor, "establishes minimum wage, overtime pay,
recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees
in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local
governments."

In a statement, McDonald's says they are reviewing the
allegations:

"McDonald's and our independent owner-operators share a concern
and commitment to the well-being and fair treatment of all people
who work in McDonald's restaurants.  We are currently reviewing
the allegations in the lawsuits.  McDonald's and our independent
franchisees are committed to undertaking a comprehensive
investigation of the allegations and will take any necessary
actions as they apply to our respective organizations."


MINNESOTA: Attorney Files Class Action Over Driving Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abby Simons, writing for StarTribune, reports that a Minnesota
attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit demanding that 36 law
enforcement agencies refund the proceeds garnered from offering
safe driving classes in lieu of traffic tickets.

Attorney Erick Kaardal on March 13 announced the lawsuit filed in
southeast Minnesota's Third Judicial District on behalf of nine
plaintiffs who seek to have money paid the program returned to
them and other Minnesotans who have taken similar classes. The 90-
page complaint that alleges law enforcement agencies participated
in "false representation" by claiming the classes were legal when
they weren't.

The classes are the subject of at least three bills currently
circulating in the Minnesota Legislature.  Two bills seek to pull
the classes into conformity with state law, while a third looks to
deem them illegal.

District Judge James Fabian ordered the Wabasha County sheriff's
safe driving class to a halt after two county commissioners sued,
alleging that law enforcement for years flouted a state law that
prohibits such classes.  Judge Fabian called the program "a
continued and repeated trespass on the laws of the state of
Minnesota."

The programs allow drivers to keep tickets off their records in
exchange for paying to take a class ranging in price from $75-125.
From 2010 to 2012, such classes raised about $1.6 million,
according to a report by State Auditor Rebecca Otto.  While about
a third of the proceeds from most traffic tickets go to the state,
most jurisdictions kept all of the fees generated from their
classes.  Ms. Otto repeatedly warned that such "off the books"
alternatives were illegal.  In the two months since Fabian's
ruling, most of the remaining cities and counties closed similar
safe driving classes.  However, nine remain in operation.

Mr. Kaardal demands more than $1 million on behalf of his clients
and is seeking more to join the class.


MOY TOY: Removed "Eagles" Suit to Middle District of Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eagles Nest, LLC, et al. v. Moy
Toy, LLC, et al., Case No. 2013-CH-717, was removed from the
Chancery Court of Cumberland County, Tennessee, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Cookeville).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00010 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David T. Black, Esq.
          Melanie E. Davis, Esq.
          KIZER & BLACK, PLLC
          329 Cates Street
          Maryville, TN 37801-4903
          Telephone: (865) 980-1609
          Facsimile: (865) 980-1640
          E-mail: peggys@usit.net
                  mdavis@kizer-black.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory C. Logue, Sr., Esq.
          Lindy Degnan Harris, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          900 Riverview Tower
          900 S. Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 215-1000
          Facsimile: (865) 215-1001
          E-mail: logueg@wmbac.com
                  lharris@wmbac.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Limits Aid to College Athletes, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that The
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its five
biggest football conferences collude to limit financial aid to
college athletes at far below market levels, a former running back
for the West Virginia Mountaineers claims in a California federal
antitrust class action.

Shawne Alston sued the NCAA, the Pac 12, the Big Ten, the Big 12,
the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference, in
a 120-page lawsuit.  His lead counsel is Jon T. King, with Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, of Berkeley.

Alston claims that the NCAA and its power conferences violate the
Sherman antitrust Act by colluding to cap the financial aid given
to players at a level below what it costs them to attend college,
and far below what the competitive market would pay.

He seeks two specific remedies: an injunction to restrain the NCAA
and its power conferences from continuing to limit financial aid
at its current level; and damages for the difference between the
grants-in-aid awarded and the cost of attendance.

Alston played running back for the Mountaineers from 2009-2012.
According to the lawsuit, he had to borrow more than $5,000 to
cover the difference between his scholarship and what it cost to
attend school.  He wants the power football schools to be ordered,
or at least able, to include the actual cost of attendance, and
possibly more, in their scholarships.

"Division I football . . . generates billions of dollars a year in
revenue.  Not a single dollar of that revenue, however, would
exist if it were not for the efforts of the . . . football players
themselves," the complaint states.

Alston then lists the eye-popping revenue reported by some top
football programs for the 2011-12 season: Texas with $109 million
in revenue and $82 million in profit; Michigan with $85 million in
revenue and $59 million in profit; and Alabama with $82 million in
revenue and $47 million in profit.

The top five revenue-producing football programs include Auburn,
with $77 million in revenue and $39 million in profit, and
Georgia, with $75 million in revenue and $51 million in profits,
according to the complaint.

According to Alston's figures, the top five football schools enjoy
a more than healthy 65 percent profit margin from their football
programs: reporting $277 million in combined profits from $428
million in combined revenue.

"While players scrimp, coaches and universities most certainly do
not," Alston says in the complaint.  "The average salary for major
college football coaches is over $2 million, with some coaches
earning over $7 million."

Alston observes that Alabama Coach Nick Saban, who makes $7
million, was given a $1.5 million raise that would have translated
to $17,000 for each player on his team on scholarship.

Assistant coaches are making as much as $4 million per year,
conference commissioners are making millions per year and athletic
directors are also bringing home giant paychecks.  NCAA officials
do quite well, too, according to the complaint, which says that
NCAA President Mark Emmert earns $1.67 million per year.

All of this is possible due to enormous television contracts. ESPN
and other networks pay billions of dollars for rights to broadcast
games, while players struggle to make ends meet, and can lose
their scholarships and their right to play at all for something so
simple as accepting a junker car from a booster, to get to
practice.

Many coaches and others in NCAA leadership have even acknowledged
the problem. The lawsuit cites more than a decade of such
comments.  It claims that Emmert said in December 2013: "We've
been working on that for 2 years. They were talking about that
long before I showed up.  We don't need a lawsuit to do the right
thing. That's important for people to know."

Citing the "robust competition" among the schools and conferences
to recruit players, Alston suggests that this robust system be
enlarged, in line with antitrust law, so that the conferences
"compete among themselves . . . as to the financial aid terms that
conference members will make available to college football
players.  Such incremental competition would allay the fears (even
though unfounded) of those that decry the repercussions of an
instantaneous transition to a wide-open free market, with every
school making its own independent decisions."

Co-counsel includes attorneys with Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, of
San Francisco.

The Plaintiff's lead counsel is:

          Jon T. King, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jonk@hbsslaw.com


NESTLE USA: Alleged Chocolate Cartel Wins Favorable Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Rose Bouboushian reports that
a federal judge melted down claims that Hershey, Mars and Nestle
ran a $726 million chocolate cartel, finding that "nothing
scandalous or improper has been discovered."

The multidistrict litigation sprang from 91 separate civil actions
first brought in 2007 against Hershey, Mars, Nestle and Cadbury.
Cadbury settled for $1.3 million and was dismissed from the case
in 2011, and a year later U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner
certified a class of direct purchasers: those who directly
purchased standard and king-size candy bars for resale from the
defendants.

An expert for the plaintiffs had estimated damages at $726
million.

The confectioneries later moved for summary judgment as to the
direct-purchaser class and the individual purchaser plaintiffs.
The latter include major supermarkets and pharmacies like Kroger,
Safeway, CVS and Rite Aid, but a civil action from Associated
Wholesale Grocers is not included.

After mediation proved unsuccessfully this fall, Conner granted
the motions on Feb. 26.

Hershey and the others may have upped prices "with awareness of
their competitors' pricing decisions," and may have been
"influenced or motivated" by their competitors' actions, but other
variables were also at play, according to the ruling.

These factors include rising input costs, like raw materials,
labor, health and energy costs.

The judge tossed aside the claim that the chocolatiers relied
solely on "an attractive opportunity for us to catch people by
surprise," as one top Mars executive put it.

"The overt evidence before the court establishes that defendants'
actions, while parallel, were nonetheless the result of reasoned,
independent business mindedness," Conner wrote.  "Quite simply,
plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendants' actions were
unreasonable or irrational in the competitive market."

Although Canadian affiliates of the defendants were charged in a
price-fixing scheme to which Hershey Canada pleaded guilty last
June, Conner said the purchasers failed to show "any tie" between
the Canadian and American goings-on.  (Emphasis in original.)

"Initially, plaintiffs' claims of a domestic price-fixing
conspiracy were quite plausible," Conner wrote.  "The Canadian
trade spend conspiracy raised the specter of Sherman Act
violations in our contiguous marketplace."

He added: "Despite diligent efforts on the part of plaintiffs'
counsel and nearly unfettered access to defendants' records,
plaintiffs are before the court with nothing more than speculation
as to the who, what, when, where, and how of the communications
that allegedly facilitated the parallel price increases.  Nothing
scandalous or improper has been discovered within our borders, and
no evidence permits a reasonable inference of a price-fixing
agreement."

The original four defendants controlled more than 80 percent of
the $16 billion U.S. chocolate market in 2006, and half the world
market, according to one 2007 class action filed in New Jersey.

Conner's ruling makes no mention of indirect purchasers, a portion
of the action in which he reopened discovery in August.

The case is In Re: Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:08-mdl-01935-CCC, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.


NORTHWESTERN MGMT: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Dental Assistant Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Findlay Lindo, on her own behalf and all similarly
situated individuals v. Northwestern Management Services, LLC
d/b/a Gentle Dental, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, Case
No. 0:14-cv-60263-FAM (S.D. Fla., February 1, 2014) alleges that
during the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to
compensate her and similarly situated non exempt dental assistants
at rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week.

Northwestern Management Services, LLC, doing business as Gentle
Dental, is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation engaged in
business in Florida, with a place of business in Broward County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliot Kozolchyk, Esq.
          KOZ LAW, P.A.
          320 S.E. 9th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (786) 924-9929
          Facsimile: (786) 358-6071
          E-mail: ekoz@kozlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard Celler, Esq.
          CELLER LEGAL GROUP
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 243-4295
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


PEPSICO INC: Faces "Sciortino" Suit Over Pepsi's Caramel Coloring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Sciortino and Arielle Weinstock, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pepsico, Inc., Case No. 3:14-
cv-00478-EMC (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2014) seeks to recover
damages and remedy in connection with Pepsi's continuing failure
to warn individuals in California of their exposure to the
dangerous chemical 4-Methylimidazole when consuming Pepsi's
products: Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, and Pepsi One.

4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) is a chemical compound that forms during
the manufacturing of certain types of caramel coloring (known as
Class III and Class IV caramel coloring) that are used to color
cola-type beverages and other foods.  On United States product
labels it appears simply as "caramel coloring."  4-MEI is a
chemical known to cause cancer and is contained in the Products in
an amount sufficient to expose California consumers to substantial
health risks.

PepsiCo, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation headquartered in
Purchase, New York.  The Company manufacturers, distributes,
markets, advertises, and sells the Products throughout California
and the rest of the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  hcunningham@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          William A. Baird, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
                  tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Marcus Joseph Bradley, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ, DANIELS & BRADLEY
          29229 Canwood Street
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (310) 478-5838
          Facsimile: (310) 478-1232
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Lemaire" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Lemaire and Brian Lemaire, 108 Lapin Road, Breaux Bridge,
Louisiana 70571 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York 10017, Case No. 6:14-cv-00155-RFD-CMH (W.D. La.,
January 31, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, mafnufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and
medical practitioners.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: Sherman@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

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


POWER & LIGHT: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that on March 10, in federal court, a class-
action lawsuit has been brought against the owners of Kansas
City's Power & Light Entertainment District over allegations that
tactics against African-Americans are being done to limit the
number of tenants of their kind at the district, the Kansas City
Star said.

Dante AR Combs and Adam S Williams, who leads the lawsuit, claimed
that there were three instances that happened between 2010 or 2011
wherein the two experienced racial discrimination despite the fact
that they both wore proper attire and were in their best conduct.
Combs and Williams said in the lawsuit that they were denied
admission or were singled out to be harassed in nightclubs within
the entertainment district.

Lawyer Linda Dickens, who represents another plaintiff, former
Power & Light Entertainment District employee Glen Cusimano, said
that his client had an altercation with a rabbit, or a street term
used to label Caucasian men hired to create a disturbance for the
sole purpose of having African-Americans arrested or ejected from
the area.  Ms. Dickens added that his client was fired as a result
of the altercation.

"(African-Americans, more frequently than members of other races),
suffered injuries including, but not limited to: inconvenience,
insult, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress and other
actual damages, which in sum exceed $5 million," the lawsuit
claimed.

The Cordish Cos officials, whose company owns and operates the
entertainment district, had said that the lawsuit was baseless,
The Kansas City Star had quoted them.  Asset Management director
Zed Smith, whose company is an affiliate of Cordish, said, "We all
work collaboratively to ensure that the guest experience is
excellent for all of our customers.  We take pride in our customer
service and the customer service of our tenants, and we vigorously
deny this trumped-up and meritless claim."

The Kansas City Star noted that the district earlier received a
discrimination complaint in 2009 regarding the area's dress code.
Although Cordish has denied the allegations, the company modified
the district's dress code, and a settlement was reached in 2010.


PUDA COAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
federal judge in Manhattan on March 11 dismissed a class action
lawsuit alleging that a unit of CITIC Group Corporation, a massive
state-owned Chinese investment company, facilitated securities
fraud on the part of Puda Coal Inc.

Puda Coal was a U.S.-listed Chinese company that collapsed in an
accounting scandal in 2011, triggering a slew of shareholder class
actions and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit.
Puda Coal's chairman, Ming Zhao, is alleged to have transferred
the company's most important subsidiary to himself and then forged
documents to conceal the scheme from shareholders.  As Barron's
reported, CITIC loaned money to Zhao before its collapse, but the
investment giant wasn't targeted in the SEC complaint.

In April 2013 a Puda shareholder represented by the Rosen Law Firm
filed class action claims against CITIC Group subsidiary CITIC
Trust Co., alleging that it aided and abetted Puta Coal's deceit
in violation of U.S. securities laws.  CITIC's lawyer,
Carl Oberdier -- cwo@oberdier.com -- of the small Manhattan firm
Oberdier Ressmeyer, moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.
Mr. Oberdier also argued that the shareholder failed to point to
any evidence that CITIC knowingly or negligently assisted Zhao's
scheme.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest adopted both arguments in
the March 11 ruling.  She concluded that she doesn't have
jurisdiction over CITIC, because its conduct wasn't aimed at the
U.S. and it didn't aid Puda Coal "in a manner that might have some
effect in the United States."  She also concluded that the facts
alleged in the complaint "are equally consistent with CITIC's
ignorance of Zhao's fraud."


RANCHO FEEDING: Health Officials Issue Recall for Beef Jerky
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that health officials have issued
another recall for a food product processed by a Northern
California slaughterhouse.

The Monterey County Health Department said in a statement on
March 17 that it was recalling Krave Jerky's garlic chili pepper
beef jerky processed at Rancho Feeding Corporation in Petaluma,
Calif.

The agency said it was recalling the 3.25-ounce jerky product
because of safety concerns.  The product was distributed
nationwide and will bear the mark "EST 18951."

Rancho Feeding Corporation halted operations last month after a
series of recalls, including one on Feb. 10 for 8.7 million pounds
of beef that had been processed from diseased animals without a
complete inspection.

Health officials have not received any reports of illness caused
by the products.


REAL CHINESE: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Zevallos, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Real
Chinese Food Corporation d/b/a China Wok Take Out Leon Chau Yuen
a/k/a Leo Yuen, Ye Zhou Chiao Xiaojun a/k/a Iza, Individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20400-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2014) seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of
the United States.

Real Chinese Food Corporation, doing business as China Wok Take
Out, is a Florida corporation, having its main place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked.  The
Individual Defendants are directors or owners of China Wok.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter Theodore Mavrick, Esq.
          PETER T. MAVRICK PA
          1620 W Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
          Telephone: (954) 564-2246
          E-mail: peter@mavricklaw.com


SASKATCHEWAN: SARM Mulls Suit Over Land Transfer Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Austin M. Davis, writing for The Regina Leader-Post, reports that
confusion over 79-year-old land transfer agreements has the
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM)
threatening the provincial government with a class-action lawsuit.

Despite the strong language in a resolution passed on March 11 at
SARM's annual convention, both sides would rather resolve the
matter over Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act (PFRA) pastures
through discussions over legal action.

"That's the last resort.  I'm positive we can sit down and discuss
things and work things out," said Fred Baran, a councillor in the
RM of Dundurn.

PFRA operated 61 pastures in Saskatchewan, covering 1.78 million
acres.  The community pastures system was originally created to
rehabilitate land affected by severe drought and soil erosion.
The land is being transferred from the federal government to the
province.

The March 11 resolution on PFRA pastures was brought forward by
the RMs of Mount Hope, Reno and Heart's Hill.

Mr. Baran addressed his concerns during a bear-pit session with
provincial cabinet on March 12.  He produced minutes from a 1939
Land Utilization Board (LUB) meeting that said if the transferred
land was no longer being used for a specific purpose, "that the
rural municipality be offered a lease on these lands or on their
request the title be transferred back to them."

Some of the 61 pastures have already been transferred, but the
lands around Dundurn are still in federal control.  Mr. Baran
wants to see Dundurn's 34 quarter sections of land returned to
patrons within the municipality to give aspiring cattle farmers a
low-cost way to enter the business.

Premier Brad Wall said his government has explored ways to turn
Crown land over to producers since 2007.

"The government has a significant holding of land in this
province, and I'm not sure that's the role of government, but some
of it's very important in terms of the livestock business.  And
longstanding arrangements, we'll respect those," Mr. Wall said.

Lyle Stewart, minister of agriculture, responded twice to
Mr. Baran's questions and comments.  When the session was over,
they met privately to discuss Mr. Baran's concerns and the LUB
minutes.

"Part of the problem is the length of time since these lands were
transferred," Mr. Stewart said.  "In this case, it seems to be a
matter of RM notes, and in some cases minutes of meetings,
differing from the provincial and federal take on what happened.
We're just not sure.  Nobody here is trying to be unreasonable."

As the federal government reverts ownership of pasture lands back
to the province, Stewart said the plan is to lease them to patron
groups.

Mr. Stewart is hopeful resolving the issue won't require a
lawsuit.

Saskatchewan will have control of all 61 pastures by 2018.


SEASIDE ROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Laborer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Tamanis, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Seaside Roofing, Inc., a Florida corporation; and
Joseph W. Snyder, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-14044-JEM (S.D.
Fla., January 31, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated
laborers of the Defendants, who performed more than 40 hours of
work on and off the clock but were not paid one and one half times
their hourly rate for all hours worked beyond 40 within any work
week.

Seaside Roofing, Inc., is a Florida for Profit Corporation with
its principal place of business in Martin County, Florida.  The
Company does business as a roof repair and installation
contractor, ordering fabricating and installing goods made in
Intra-state commerce and selling the goods and services to
customers.  Joseph W. Snyder is the majority shareholder, officer,
director or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A.
          824 W Indiantown Rd.
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 691-9048
          Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
          E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com
                  ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


SINGAPORE AIRLINES: Settles Class Action in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lim, writing for Channel News Asia, reports that Singapore
Airlines Cargo has settled a class action suit in Australia and
will make a financial provision of approximately S$6 million in
its current financial year.

"Under the terms of the proposed resolution, Singapore Airlines
Cargo in no way admits any wrongdoing or liability with regard to
any claims made in the action," the cargo arm of Singapore
Airlines said in a statement on March 14.

The terms of the proposed resolution are confidential and subject
to the approval of the Federal Court of Australia, SIA Cargo
added.

The suit against SIA Cargo and a group of other airlines in
Australia started in 2007 following competition investigations in
the air cargo sector.


SONIC DRIVE-IN: Accused of Making Employees Work Off the Clock
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sonic Drive-In makes
employees work off the clock and illegally deducts presumed tips
from their paychecks, a class action claims in Alabama Federal
Court.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Canterbury Homeowners Attend Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Stylianou, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that constant
delays, a lack of control and sheer frustration have prompted
about 200 Canterbury homeowners to attend a meeting about a class
action against Southern Response.

Christchurch law firm GCA Lawyers, headed by Grant Cameron, has
taken on the case which claims breach of contract by way of
unjustifiable delays in processing and settling earthquake claims.

Many people spoken to by The Press at the meeting, held at the
Westpac Business Hub on March 13, said they still did not know if
their homes would be rebuilt or repaired.

Jenny and Ron Harris spent about $200,000 making alterations to
their Mount Pleasant home with a view to sell and downsize for
their retirement.

The earthquakes "wrecked it", Ron Harris said, and negotiations
with their insurer had so far failed to reach a satisfactory
outcome.

Like many other claimants, class action was seen as a last resort.

"But we've just had enough," Jenny Harris said.

Mr. Cameron told the claimants that a class action against their
insurer "is the mechanism that will break this impasse".

Class actions were "big and ugly from a defendant's point of
view", he said.

Southern Response would not like any court action that included
"interpretation of policies", he said, and could move to settle
rather than have a court decision "set a precedent for hundreds of
other claimants".

Graham Bloomfield, spokesman for the Honour Your Policy Action
group that has brought the action, urged frustrated policy holders
"not to be intimidated".

Some homeowners believed joining the legal fight could "further
threaten their position".  "We need to readdress the balance of
power," he said.


STERLING JEWELERS: Judge Dismisses Gender Discrimination Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a major
gender discrimination claim involving some 44,000 women and the
nation's largest speciality retail jeweler has been dismissed
because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission failed to
prove that it conducted a nationwide investigation before accusing
Sterling Jewelers of violating its employees' rights.

Western District Judge Richard Arcara last week embraced a
magistrate judge's report castigating the EEOC for not fully
investigating the claims and attempting to introduce evidence it
had withheld from the company in discovery.

Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy also found it "more than a
little ironic" for the EEOC to accuse Sterling of stonewalling
when it repeatedly erected roadblocks to the company's efforts to
obtain information.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sterling Jewelers,
09-cv-00706, began about nine years ago when 19 female employees
at stores in New York and seven other states filed charges with
the EEOC alleging they were denied equal pay and promotion
opportunities because of their gender.

Their claims were investigated out of the EEOC's Buffalo office
and resulted in an action in 2008 accusing the company of unlawful
employment practices throughout its nationwide network of 1,700
stores, including the Kay Jewelers chain.

Sterling moved for summary judgment, arguing that EEOC's claims of
nationwide discrimination could not stand without evidence of a
nationwide investigation of the company's employment practices.
Judge McCarthy agreed in a report affirmed by Judge Arcara.

At the outset, Judge McCarthy addressed the EEOC's claim that the
courts had no business inquiring into the sufficiency of its
probes. Here, the magistrate judge said the question wasn't so
much whether EEOC conducted a credible nationwide investigation,
but whether it conducted a nationwide investigation at all.

Congress has tasked the EEOC with enforcing Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, which prohibits private employers from discriminating
against employees based on gender, race and religion.  That same
landmark statute imposes a heightened duty on the agency to
investigate its claims prior to filing suit and also requires a
good-faith effort to meet and negotiate a resolution with the
defendant.

Judge McCarthy said the EEOC bore the burden of proving that it
satisfied all necessary conditions to filing a claim, including
the administrative obligation to fully investigate.  He said that
in this case, EEOC admitted it had "little investigative material
in the files" and that the investigator had little recollection of
what his probe several years earlier had entailed.

The magistrate judge said that while the EEOC accuses Sterling of
"gamesmanship" and attempting to divert the court's attention from
the merits of the claims, "it ignores the fact that the absence of
a nationwide pre-suit investigation is a defense to the EEOC's
nationwide pattern-or-practice claim."

Judge McCarthy also took exception to the EEOC's assertion that
"Sterling stonewalled the EEOC at every turn" in its attempt to
obtain nationwide pay and promotion data.  He said the agency made
a tactical decision not to subpoena information from Sterling and
to rely instead on a statistical analysis prepared by its expert.
Judge McCarthy said the agency, despite his warnings, attempted to
use that data against Sterling after refusing to disclose it in
discovery.

"On June 26, 2013, I again warned that the EEOC 'can't use a
privilege as both a sword and a shield,'" McCarthy wrote in the
report adopted by Judge Arcara.  "[T]he EEOC may not now oppose
Sterling's motion for summary judgment by relying upon the
information which it withheld from Sterling in discovery."
In recommending summary judgment, Judge McCarthy said, "the EEOC
has already had one opportunity to conduct a pre-suit
investigation and to provide discovery as to the scope of that
investigation. Once is enough."

Anna Marie Pohl, an attorney with the EEOC's district office in
Manhattan and lead counsel in the case, said the agency maintains
that it conducted a full, nationwide investigation.

"We are exploring our options," she said.

In a brief asking Judge Arcara to reject the report, EEOC trial
attorney Konrad Batog argued judicial review of the agency's
investigative efforts is not permitted.

"Allowing review of the EEOC's investigation invites endless
disputes about the details of the investigation and shifts the
focus away from the alleged discrimination at issue," Mr. Bartog
wrote.

Gerald Maatman Jr., a partner at Seyfarth Shaw and lead counsel
for Sterling, said the ruling has implications for employers
nationwide "because the issue is what are the rules and
obligations of the government when it sues in the public
interest."

"When the EEOC files a lawsuit the scope of the lawsuit can't
exceed the scope of the pre-lawsuit investigation," said
Mr. Maatman, who works in the Chicago and New York offices and
concentrates on defense of employment discrimination claims.  "You
cannot file a lawsuit and then fish for more theories, fish more
claimants and make the lawsuit bigger than the pre lawsuit
investigation."

Also representing Sterling were Jeffrey Klein --
jeffrey.klein@weil.com -- of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in Manhattan
and Scott Horton -- shorton@jaeckle.com -- of Jaeckle Fleischmann
& Mugel in Buffalo.

By adopting Judge McCarthy's recommendations, Judge Arcara has
handed the EEOC the latest in a string of losses.

The agency saw a pregnancy bias case against Bloomberg LP unravel
in September, after a judge concluded that EEOC lawyers didn't put
Bloomberg on fair notice of the claims or try to negotiate prior
to filing suit.  A month earlier, CRST Van Expedited Inc. won a
substantial attorney fee award from the EEOC in a case where a
judge faulted the agency for using the discovery process to find
potential plaintiffs. The EEOC was also dealt a loss last year in
a similar case against the Freeman Companies.

The EEOC did get some good news last month, however, when the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that failure on the
agency's part to mediate with defendants shouldn't constitute
grounds for dismissal of a subsequent lawsuit.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over ACTOS, ACTOSplus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Takeda America
Holdings, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A., Inc.; Takeda
Development Center Americas, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Actavis Plc F/K/A Actavis, Inc.; Watson
Laboratories, Inc.; Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.; Ranbaxy, Inc.;
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd.; and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00644-
RA-RLE (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2014) is an antitrust action in
connection with the alleged restraint of competition in the market
for ACTOS and ACTOSplus.

The lawsuit arises out of the Defendants' alleged overarching
anticompetitive scheme to allocate, and unreasonably delay
competition in, the market for pioglitazone hydrochloride tablets,
which Takeda sells under the brand name ACTOS, and further
anticompetitive agreements between Takeda and each of Mylan and
Teva to allocate, and unreasonably delay competition in, the
market for the fixed dose combination product containing both
pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin (biguanide), which Takeda
sells under the brand name ACTOplus met.

Doctors prescribe ACTOS for the improvement of glycemic control in
patients with Type 2 diabetes, either as a monotherapy treatment
or as a combination therapy consisting of two separate drugs --
pioglitazone hydrochloride together with sulfonylurea, metformin,
or insulin.  Doctors prescribe ACTOplus met as a fixed dose
combination of pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin to improve
blood sugar control in adults with Type 2 diabetes who are already
either taking ACTOS and metformin separately or taking metformin
alone and it is not controlling blood glucose at normal levels.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is a Japanese company
headquartered in Osaka, Japan.  Takeda America Holdings, Inc. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
and the United States parent corporation of Takeda Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.  Takeda
America Holdings, Inc. is a New York corporation based in New York
City.  Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., formerly known as
Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.  Takeda
Development Center Americas, Inc., formerly known as Takeda Global
Research and Development Center, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
also headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Kehoe, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 798-0159
          Facsimile: (212) 867-1767
          E-mail: jak@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  chc@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com
                  dminerva@forthepeople.com

The Takeda Entities are represented by:

          Jeffrey Ira Weinberger, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON (LA)
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9127
          Facsimile: (213) 683-5127
          E-mail: jeffrey.weinberger@mto.com

Actavis PLC, formerly known as Actavis, Inc., and Watson
Laboratories, Inc. are represented by:

          Steven Craig Sunshine, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (DC)
          1440 New York Avenue N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7000
          E-mail: steve.sunshine@skadden.com

               - and -

          Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (917) 777-3276
          E-mail: karen.lent@skadden.com

The Teva Entities are represented by:

          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC)
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4913
          Facsimile: (212) 446-6460
          E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Crawford" Suit in Tennessee Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Crawford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02071-SHM-dkv
(W.D. Tenn., January 31, 2014) arises from the data breach at
Target stores in late 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Peter B. Gee, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN-MEMPHIS, LLC
          40 S. Main Street, Suite 2600
          One Commerce Square
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 217-7000
          Facsimile: (901) 333-1897
          E-mail: dmclaughlin@forthepeople.com
                  pgee@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  tgivens@forthepeople.com


TOYS DISTRIBUTION: Inspectors Found Unsafe Levels of Lead in Toys
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that the
federal government found unsafe levels of lead and other toxins
and dangers in 61 of 66 imported toys they inspected at four
California companies' warehouses, federal prosecutors say in a
lawsuit.

U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. sued four companies and six people
in Federal Court.  They want these defendants ordered to stop
importing and selling the children's toys: Toys Distribution Inc.
dba TDI International, and its officers Loan Tuyet Thai, Lan My
Lam and Paul Phuong; S & J Merchandise Inc. and its officer Cuc T.
Thai; BLJ Apparel Inc. and its officer Luan Luu; and All Seasons
Sales Inc. and its officer Tom Liu.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission inspectors have collected
66 samples of TDI's consumer since 2008 at TDI's warehouses at the
Port of Loa Angeles/Long Beach and Los Angeles, the complaint
states.  It continues: "In total the CPSC found 61 of these
samples to be children's products in violation of CPSC statutes
and regulations.  The violative samples included children's
products and toys with illegal levels of total lead content, lead
paint, and phthalates; toys intended for children under three
years of age that contain small parts; infant rattles which may
cause choking and/or suffocation; and children's products and toys
lacking required certification based on third-party testing and
lacking tracking labels.  The CPSC issued a total of 23 Letters of
Advice ('LOAs') from June 14, 2008 to September 14, 2011,
notifying the TDI defendants of the violations."

Toys Distribution imported motorized and "pull-back" toy cars with
impermissible levels of lead and small parts hazards, toy musical
instruments with small parts, dolls with illegal levels of lead
and phthalates, and rattles that failed to meet the infant rattle
standards, according to the Justice Department.

S & J Merchandise's illegal toys included numerous models of toys
cars, a toy telephone, and plastic dolls. All Seasons Sales'
unsafe toys included a children's kitchen set and police set that
both exceeded the lead content limit, according to the Justice
Department.

"CPSC and our federal law enforcement partners are committed to
keeping dangerous toys out of the marketplace all year long," CPSC
Acting Chairman Robert Adler said in a statement accompanying the
27-page lawsuit.  "Manufacturers, importers and retailers need to
know that CPSC and the Justice Department are actively enforcing
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a law that has
strengthened the nation's product safety net."

S & J Merchandise, BLJ Apparel and All Season Sales, and
individual defendants Tom Liu and Luan Luu agreed to settle the
litigation and be bound by a consent decree enjoining them from
committing violations of the CPSA and FHSA, according to the
Justice Department.

The proposed consent decree has not yet been filed with the court
for judicial approval.  Toys Distribution and individual
defendants Loan Tuyet Thai, Lan My Lam, Paul Phuong and Cuc T.
Thai have not agreed to a settlement.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that in a
case of awkward timing, a judge on March 11 dismissed a securities
class action against Transocean Ltd. on the basis of an appellate
decision that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider reversing
just the day before.

In a 10-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in
Manhattan dismissed as time-barred claims that Transocean misled
shareholders about its safety record.  Judge Schofield based her
decision on a June 2013 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, which adopted a defendant-friendly approach to
determining whether the statute of repose for securities claims
could be tolled in litigation against IndyMac.  The Supreme Court
granted cert in that case, Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS Inc., on March 10.

Transocean is one of the world's largest offshore drilling
contractors and was the owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig at
the center of BP plc's 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  In
the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Scott + Scott
brought a securities class action on behalf of shareholders of
GlobalSantaFe Corp, which Transocean acquired in 2007.  The suit
alleged that Transocean falsely stated in proxy statements
relating to the merger that it was in compliance with
environmental laws.

The first judge assigned to the case, Laura Taylor Swain, ruled in
2011 that one of Scott + Scott's two named plaintiffs didn't have
standing.  Soon after, Transocean's defense lawyers at Munger
Tolles & Olson moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the
remaining named plaintiff didn't join the case within the
applicable three-year statute of repose (statutes of repose are
like statutes of limitations, except less easily tolled).

By early 2013, it was clear that the case would live or die on one
question: Did the commencement of the class action toll the
statute of repose for all putative class members? That exact issue
was before the Second Circuit in consolidated securities class
action litigation against now-defunct IndyMac and its
underwriters, so Swain stayed Transocean's motion to dismiss until
she could see how the Second Circuit would rule.

The Second Circuit ultimately decided last June that the filing of
a class action doesn't toll the statute of repose.  It appeared
that Scott + Scott's case was toast.  But on March 10 the Supreme
Court gave the plaintiffs a glimmer of hope by agreeing to decide
the question once and for all.

Scott + Scott quickly fired off a letter to Judge Schofield, who
inherited the Transocean case from Swain, informing her of the
cert grant in IndyMac.  "This is significant because if the
Supreme Court reverses IndyMac's holding . . . then defendants'
motion will lack a legal foundation," the lawyers wrote.

Judge Schofield's ruling on March 11 didn't include any mention of
the Supreme Court's decision.  But the Transocean plaintiffs will
inevitably appeal her ruling to the Second Circuit, which can stay
the case pending a ruling from the high court in IndyMac.  From
Scott + Scott's perspective, it probably doesn't matter who issues
the stay, as long as the case survives long enough to be revived,
potentially, by the Supreme Court's ruling.

Scott + Scott's Geoffrey Johnson -- gjohnson@scott-scott.com --
declined to comment.  Transocean's lawyer, John Spiegel --
John.Spiegel@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles, referred The Litigation
Daily to a Transocean spokesperson, who told The Litigation Daily
the company is "pleased with the judge's decision to dismiss the
case."


UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Action v. Secret Service Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
NBC reports that the ACLU visited Southern Oregon University to
talk about a local free speech class action lawsuit that's headed
to the Supreme Court.

Back in 2004 when President George W. Bush visited Jacksonville to
campaign for his re-election police officers and Secret Service
agents allegedly used riot control methods on protesters outside
the Jacksonville Inn.  Protesters say the agents and officers
assaulted them but allowed Bush supporters to stay standing near
the President.

The ACLU Foundation of Oregon filed the federal lawsuit.  It will
be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26.  The justices
will consider whether or not to release the federal government
from the lawsuit.  Local and state law enforcement agencies are
also named in the lawsuit.


VERTRUE INC: Webb Klase & Lemond Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Atlanta law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC on March 13 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Vertrue, Inc.,
Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Velo Holdings, MasterCard International,
Inc., MyLife.com, Inc., and Oak Investment Partners.  The suit
states that Vertrue partners with MyLife.com and other deceptive
online businesses to trick consumers into unknowingly joining
Vertrue's "consumer savings clubs."

According to the lawsuit, most club "members" never make use of
their savings club "memberships" and cancel their subscriptions
immediately upon learning of the fraudulent charges.  According to
the lawsuit, MasterCard earns fees by processing Vertrue's charges
while knowing they are fraudulent and processing such plainly
illegitimate charges violates MasterCard's agreements.

The lawsuit further states that Vertrue's parent company, Velo
Holdings, and MyLife.com's investor-owner Oak Investment Partners,
which invested $25 million in MyLife in 2007, also participate in
Vertrue's improper practices.  The case, Chi v. Vertrue, Inc., et
al., was filed in the United States District Court of the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on February 28, 2014 and
has been given case number 1:14-cv-00614-TWT.

The lawsuit proposes a class action on behalf of all consumers
nationally who have been harmed by these practices.

The new complaint alleges that Vertrue's "savings clubs,"
administered by its subsidiaries such as Adaptive Marketing, LLC,
include At Home Rewards, At Home Rewards+, BusinessMax, Cross
Country Savings, DealMax, Home Savings Mall, Food and Flix,
Getaway and Save, Leisure Exclusives, My Great Deals, Passport to
Fun, Passport to Fun+, SavingsAce, SavingSmart, Shopping
Essentials, Shopping Essentials+, Simply You, Today's Escapes,
Today's Escapes+, ValueMax, and Your Savings Club.

The lawsuit states that when consumers purchase goods and services
from MyLife.com and Vertrue's other online partners they encounter
confusing, obscured ads for Vertrue's "savings clubs."  Consumers
click through these ads without realizing that they have
accidentally "joined" one of Vertrue's clubs, according to the
lawsuit.  The lawsuit also states that consumers who accidentally
join Vertrue's clubs are charged recurring monthly fees of $20 or
more until they affirmatively cancel their "memberships."
Vertrue's entire business model is based around this deceptive
practice, and Vertrue's co-conspirators, including MasterCard,
knowingly facilitate and profit from Vertrue's fraudulent
activities.  The lawsuit states that MasterCard approves such
unauthorized charges, and profits from them, even though this
violates MasterCard's own rules regarding protection of private
customer credit card data.

The suit asserts that the other Defendants are vital to the
improper billing scheme.  First, Vertrue transmits a consumer's
credit card data to the related credit card network, which the
complaint alleges was MasterCard.  MasterCard verifies the
consumer's identity and, the lawsuit states, analyzes the
transaction to determine whether it is fraudulent.  MasterCard
transmits the relevant data to the cardholder's issuing bank
which, if it authorizes the charge, sends a verification message
to MasterCard, which then informs the issuing bank that the charge
has been authorized, according to the suit.  The suit claims that
the issuing bank then informs Vertrue of the authorization, at
which point the purchase is completed and the issuing bank and
MasterCard subsequently "clear" and "settle" all of Vertrue's
charges for that day, at which point the illicitly obtained funds
are sent to Vertrue.  The suit contends that all the Defendants
are well aware of the illegal scheme, but they nonetheless
participate in order to obtain substantial transaction fees.

Vertrue is a subsidiary of Velo Holdings, an investment group also
named as a Defendant in the lawsuit, that acquired Vertrue in
2007.  According to the lawsuit, Velo and Oak Investment,
MyLife.com's senior investor-owner, were fully aware that
Vertrue's business model relied on consumer fraud when they
acquired their positions in these online companies.  The suit
asserts that these investors nevertheless controlled, participated
in, and profited from Vertrue and MyLife for years while doing
nothing to curb the companies' highly illegal business practices.

If you have unknowingly joined one of Vertrue's savings clubs and
wish to discuss this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this press release, please contact Webb, Klase & Lemond
by e-mail at contact@WebbLLC.com or by calling (770) 444-9325.
Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC is a law firm that practices complex
litigation with a focus on litigation arising from wrongful
deprivations by corporate and government entities.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Refused to Certify "Karhu" Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James I. Cohn of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida refused to certify a class in the
lawsuit initiated by Adam Karhu against Vital Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., doing business as VPX Sports.

Judge Cohn ruled that although Mr. Karhu satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
with regard to the Proposed Classes, he failed to establish that
common issues predominate and that a class action is the superior
means of resolving this controversy under Rule 23(b)(3), or that
certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Florida corporation that
manufactures and markets a dietary supplement called VPX Meltdown
Fat Incinerator.  VPX advertises that consumers can use Meltdown
to "burn fat" and achieve rapid fat loss.

In his complaint Mr. Karhu, a New York resident who purchased
Meltdown, claims that the product is ineffective for its
advertised purpose.  He filed the lawsuit on April 3, 2013, to
recover damages based upon VPX's alleged false advertisements, and
to enjoin any further misrepresentations.

The case is Adam Karhu, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a VPX
Sports, Case No. 13-60768-CIV-COHN/SELTZER, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces New "Mesidor" Discrimination Suit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Mesidor v. Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80137-KAM (S.D. Fla., February 1,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to harassment and
disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of his employment
based on his national origin (Haitian).

Mr. Mesidor filed his initial action on June 22, 2011, as one of
98 Plaintiffs (Case No. 9:11-CV-80723).  On September 13, 2013, he
became one of 79 Plaintiffs, whose claim was severed by Judge
Ryskamp (Case No. 9:11-CV-80723 [DE-381]).  He now files this
action pursuant to the September 13, 2013 Order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting
Defendant's motion to sever and for separate trials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dedrick D. Straghn, Esq.
          26 S.W. 5th Ave.
          Delray Beach, FL 33444
          Telephone: (561) 789-5232
          Facsimile: (561) 272-0774
          E-mail: dstraghn@yahoo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Clark Polkinghorn, Esq.
          Candice C. Pinares-Baez, Esq.
          Cathy Mattson Stutin, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4800
          Facsimile: (954) 525-8739
          E-mail: jpolkinghorn@laborlawyers.com
                  cpinares-baez@laborlawyers.com
                  cstutin@laborlawyers.com


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Violating Labor Laws in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank stiffed employees for overtime and violated other
labor laws, a class action claims in California Federal Court,
according to Courthouse News Service.


WHITEHAVEN COAL: Law Firm Examines Grounds for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Clifford, writing for ABC News, reports that a lawyer
says his firm is examining if there are grounds for a class action
against Whitehaven Coal over blasting and dust concerns at its
Werris Creek operation.

Partner with Shine Lawyers, John Palmieri, says he's been
approached by a number of residents who are worried about the
situation.

On March 11, up to 60 residents attended a meeting in Werris Creek
with Nationals' member for Tamworth, Kevin Anderson and Whitehaven
representatives.

Mr. Palmieri says a range of issues are being looked at, including
alleged damage to property from mine explosions, monitoring and
dust levels.  Mr. Palmieri says a number of issues are being
explored.

Whitehaven Coal's Executive General Manager of Operations,
Jamie Frankcombe, declined to be interviewed.  However, he said
the March 11 meeting provided a technical briefing for Werris
Creek residents where experts provided formal presentations.  He
says the experts delivered facts around blasting, soil
engineering, the geology of the Werris Creek area and building
structures.

Mr. Frankcombe says Whitehaven's blasting is carried out within
guidelines and in accordance with the mine's license conditions.
He says the company handles individual complaints on a case-by-
case basis.


WINCO FOODS: Sued by DFEH Director Over FEHA and ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis W. Cheng, in her official capacity as Director of the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, an agency of
the state of California, on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and
all Similarly Situated Individuals v. Winco Foods, LLC; Winco
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00483-JST (N.D. Cal., January 31,
2014) seeks to enforce the interests of the state of California in
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Americans
with Disabilities Act to correct an alleged pattern or practice of
discrimination by the Defendants against a group or class of
persons.

The Real Parties in Interest are Cristina Verduzco and Angelina
Gonzalez-Diaz.

The Defendants have maintained multiple policies and practices
that unlawfully discriminate against employees with non-work-
related disabilities, including pregnancy, in violation of the
FEHA, California's Pregnancy Disability Leave law, the California
Family Rights Act and the ADA, Ms. Cheng alleges.  She adds that
the Defendants' policies and practices constitute per se
violations of these laws, as they require those disabled employees
to take leave from work without considering reasonable
accommodations until they are fully released to work or "100%
healed."

Phyllis W. Cheng is the Director of the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing, a state agency charged with enforcing
FEHA.  DFEH's enforcement of FEHA is an exercise of the police
power of the state of California to protect the civil rights of
all Californians to seek, obtain, and hold employment without
discrimination or abridgment on account of, inter alia, disability
and sex.

Winco Foods, LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Idaho
and doing business in and throughout the state of California.
Winco Holdings, Inc. is an Idaho corporation headquartered in
Idaho and doing business in and throughout the state of
California.  The Defendants operate retail grocery stores,
including warehouse distribution centers, in Idaho, Nevada,
Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona and Utah.

Ms. Cheng is represented by:

          Alexandra Rose Seldin, Esq.
          Julia Louise Montgomery, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
          2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100
          Elk Grove, CA 95758
          Telephone: (619) 985-3608
          Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
          E-mail: alexandra.seldin@dfeh.ca.gov
                  julie.montgomery@dfeh.ca.gov

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristina M. Launey, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Nick C. Geannacopulos, Esq.
          Courtney Bohl, Esq.
          Laura J. Maechtlen, Esq.
          Robert Brian Wong, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: ngeannacopulos@seyfarth.com
                  Cbohl@seyfarth.com
                  lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com
                  bwong@seyfarth.com


ZIMMER INC: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Knee Implant
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Montgomery County man has filed a products liability lawsuit
against anjustice pendulum logo Indiana-based manufacturer of
orthopedic implants over allegations that an artificial knee made
by the defendant failed while inside the plaintiff's body.

Ron Hyman, of Huntingdon Valley, Pa., filed the suit in U.S.
District Court in Philadelphia over allegations that Zimmer Inc.,
and subsidiaries Zimmer Holdings Inc. and Zimmer US Inc., were
negligent when they put on the market an artificial knee device
that was surgically implanted into the plaintiff's leg, and which
broke, moved, failed, ruptured and/or cracked while Hyman was
walking in the spring of 2012.

The plaintiff ended up having to undergo a follow-up surgery in
April of that year to replace the faulty device, the complaint
states.

The lawsuit says that since the failure of the defendant's
product, Mr. Hyman has experienced substantial pain and stiffness
in his knee, which affects his ability to conduct daily activities
and to operate his business.

"Following the replacement of the Zimmer product, Plaintiff
continues to have trouble with his knee," the complaint reads.

The lawsuit says that as the makers and distributors of the
product, Zimmer knew or should have known that unless the device
was carefully and properly designed, manufactured and fabricated,
it would constitute an "unreasonable risk of substantial bodily
harm to those who used it for the purposes for which it was made
and intended."

The suit contains counts of strict products liability, negligence
and breach of warranties.

The complaint accuses the defendant of failing to exercise
reasonable care in the design, testing, manufacture, sale and/or
certification of the knee implant, and it says that in connection
with the sale of its products, the company warranted that its
reconstructive orthopedic knee implant was without defect, was of
good and merchantable quality and was safe for its intended use.
As a result of the defendants' actions, Mr. Hyman suffered
personal injuries, experienced great pain and suffering, required
additional knee revision surgery and incurred medical expenses.

The plaintiff also has additional scar tissue in his right knee
and required a "lengthy and protracted" rehabilitation preventing
him from performing his activities of daily living, the complaint
states.

Mr. Hyman seeks an unspecified amount of damages for past and
future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity, as well as
general damages for physical and emotional pain and suffering.

He also seeks litigation costs and attorney fees.

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Kenneth S. Saffren of the
Jenkintown, Pa. firm Saffren & Weinberg.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01388-SD.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Adversary Suits in CP Hall Ch. 11 Case Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a ruling
on March 12, 2014, granting motions to dismiss adversary
complaints of James Shipley filed in the Chapter 7 case of The
C.P. Hall Company, a defunct distributor of raw asbestos products.

Mr. Shipley, as representative of his late wife's estate, filed a
proof of claim in the bankruptcy case for $3,362,465 asserting
damages for personal injuries of his wife.  Mr. Shipley filed an
adversary complaint against certain personal injury creditors
represented by Cooney & Conway.  In his complaint, Mr. Shipley
sought a determination that he had a lien on certain insurance
proceeds, that any lien the creditors had was invalid, and that to
the extent both he and the creditors had liens, his was superior
to theirs.  Mr. Shipley also objected to the creditors' claim
totaling $121,610, 107.

In September 2013, Mr. Shipley filed another adversary complaint,
this one against the creditors represented by the O'Brien Law
Firm.  The new complaint differed somewhat from the first
complaint.  Mr. Shipley sought a determination only that any lien
the creditors claimed to have on certain insurance proceeds was
invalid.  He also objected to the creditors' claim totaling
$30,900,000.

The Bankruptcy Court noted that the main bone of contention
between the parties, ironically, is not the sufficiency of the
process but rather the sufficiency of service.  Mr. Shipley takes
the position that Rule 7004(b)(8) of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure entitled him to serve the creditors by
serving their lawyers because the lawyers were the creditors'
"agents" for purposes of the rule.  The creditors disagree.

Judge Goldgar ruled that because the process itself was
insufficient, service of process necessarily failed to confer
personal jurisdiction over the defendants.  There is consequently
no need at this juncture to reach the sufficiency of service as
sufficiency of service will be a question for another day should
Shipley choose the same method of serving his amended complaints,
Judge Goldgar said.

Accordingly, Judge Goldgar granted the motions of the defendant
creditors to dismiss the adversary complaints of Mr. Shipley, and
quashed the process in both adversary proceedings.  The Court
granted Mr. Shipley has leave to file amended complaints bearing
proper captions, and new summonses may issue.

The adversary proceedings are JAMES SHIPLEY, Plaintiff, v. COONEY
& CONWAY CREDITORS, Defendants, No. 13 A 1070, and JAMES SHIPLEY,
Plaintiff, v. O'BRIEN CREDITORS, Defendants, No. 13 A 1156 (In re
In re: THE C.P. HALL COMPANY, Chapter 7, Debtor, No. 11-B-
26443)(N.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Goldgar's memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/rBuzvDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Suspects It was Target of Fibro Attys
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that Ford Motor
Company wants to know the specific conduct exhibited by asbestos
attorneys who, according to a federal bankruptcy judge, created "a
startling pattern of misrepresentation" while pursuing their
clients' claims against multiple companies.

Ford moved to unseal evidence presented during Garlock Sealing
Technologies' bankruptcy case. In 2013, the company submitted the
evidence in an effort to prove prior recoveries against the
company in civil courts had been inflated because asbestos
attorneys withheld evidence that their clients could blame other
companies for their asbestos exposure.

In an order released in January, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George
Hodges agreed with Garlock's argument but did not release the
specific evidence cited. Legal Newsline, which was kept out of the
courtroom during the trial by Hodges, has filed a motion to unseal
the evidence.

Ford is wondering if it, like Garlock, has paid more than it
should have.

"Having reviewed the scant information presently available, it
appears that Ford may have been induced into inflated settlements
in some of the same cases examined by this court," attorneys for
the company wrote.

"This Honorable Court having found that '(i)t appears certain that
more extensive discovery would show more extensive abuse,' Ford
must be granted access to the information currently under seal.
Indeed, this pattern of misrepresentations may have affected Ford
in circumstances not yet ascertainable."

Hodges' order spurned asbestos attorneys who requested Garlock
place more than $1 billion in a trust for present and future
asbestos claimants.

Hodges instead ruled that the amount of previous awards and
settlements paid by the company in the civil justice system were
not reliable because plaintiffs attorneys had withheld exposure
evidence in order to maximize recovery against Garlock.

He ruled that Garlock needed to put $125 million in its bankruptcy
trust and that math produced by plaintiffs attorneys wasn't
reliable because Garlock had suffered large jury verdicts as a
result of claimants previously focusing their lawsuits on Garlock
while losing evidence to other asbestos exposure in the process.

"This occurrence was a result of the effort by some plaintiffs and
their lawyers to withhold evidence of exposure to other asbestos
products and to delay filing claims against bankrupt defendants'
asbestos trusts until after obtaining recoveries from Garlock,"
Hodges wrote.

Garlock brought evidence to the bankruptcy hearing demonstrating
that the last 10 years of its participation in the asbestos
litigation system "was infected by the manipulation of exposure
evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers."

According to Garlock's evidence, one firm issued to its clients 23
pages of directions on how to testify. Evidence also showed one
lawyer stated, "My duty to these clients is to maximize their
recovery, okay, and the best way for me to maximize their recovery
is to proceed against solvent viable non-bankrupt defendants
first, and then, if appropriate, to proceed against bankrupt
companies."

Hodges permitted Garlock to bring evidence proving that roughly
220 settled cases withheld evidence. Then after settlement,
clients made claims against roughly 20 companies' bankruptcy
trusts.

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

"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."

Ford routinely finds itself as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits.
Plaintiffs allege they were exposed to the material while working
with or around chrysotile-containing brake pads.

"(L)egitimate concerns about the disclosure of other information
shown to fall within an exception can and should be addressed by
redacting information, where necessary, or placing limits on
subsequent disclosure," the company argues.

"But a blanket refusal to disclose this information -- to enable
asbestos claimants and their attorneys to sweep this information
back under the rug -- will ensure that any 'unlawful injur(ies)'
to Ford remain unredressed."

Garlock has filed sealed lawsuits against the asbestos firms it
alleges committed fraud. The lawsuits were filed under seal
because they contained information previously determined by Hodges
that should remain confidential.

A hearing on Legal Newsline's motion is scheduled for April 17.

Also seeking information from the bankruptcy proceeding is health
insurer Aetna.

The company says it is the health insurer of many asbestos
claimants and thus has subrogation rights for claims against
Garlock. Aetna says it has provided millions of dollars in
benefits to plan members to treat their asbestos-related diseases.

"The public is presumptively entitled to access judicial records,"
attorneys for Aetna and The Rawlings Company wrote.

"Rule 2019 Statements, along with the exhibits filed but not
placed on the electronic docket, are judicial records. There is no
countervailing interest to overcome the presumption that movants,
as members of the public, are entitled to access the Rule 2019
Statements."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Recorded $501-Mil. Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $501 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.

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Company's products.

The Company expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Company increased its
December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Company has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Company has
requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine
the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In November 2011, the Company requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2010 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
October 31, 2011. In January 2012, ARPC stated that an update of
its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future
events than the estimate reflected in its December 2010 study and,
therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based
on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and
resolution activity and ARPC's response, the Company determined
that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2011,
the Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $668 million.

In October 2012, the Company requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2010 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2012. In December, 2012, based upon ARPC's December
2012 study and the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim
and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no
adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. The
Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims
was $602 million at December 31, 2012.

In October 2013, the Company requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2013. In December, 2013, ARPC stated that an update
of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future
events than the estimate reflected in its December 2012 study and,
therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based
on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and
resolution activity and ARPC's response, the Company determined
that no change to the accrual was required. The Corporation's
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $501
million at December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2013, approximately 19 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and approximately 81 percent
related to future claims. At December 31, 2012, approximately 18
percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 82 percent related to future claims.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $91MM Insurance Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's total receivables from insurance
policies for asbestos-related liability was $91 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.

At December 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Company after a thorough review of
applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement,
to which the Corporation and many of its liability insurers are
signatory parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with
due consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and
policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and historical
payment experience of various insurance carriers. The Wellington
Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of the Company's
insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance
carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or did
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance
policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may
raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached
settlements with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation and continues to pursue settlements with the remaining
carriers.

The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was $25 million at December 31, 2013 and $25
million at December 31, 2012. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, all
of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers
that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

At December 31, 2013, the Company's total receivables for
asbestos-related liability was $91 million.

The decrease in 2013 in the receivables for asbestos-related costs
was principally due to the resolution of receivables related to
two insolvent insurance carriers.

The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of
insurance, was $107 million in 2013, $100 million in 2012 and $88
million in 2011, and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the
consolidated statements of operations.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

The amounts recorded by the Company for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable described above were
based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as
the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year,
the average cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues
among insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for the Company to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties described above, the Company's
management cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving
pending and future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem.
The Company's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a
particular period and on the consolidated financial position of
the Corporation.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty
the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims
referred to in this filing, management believes that adequate
provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to
pending claims and proceedings, and that, except for the asbestos-
related matters described above, the ultimate outcome of all known
and future claims, after provisions for insurance, will not have a
material adverse impact on the results of operations, cash flows
and financial position of the Corporation. Should any losses be
sustained in connection with any of such legal proceedings and
claims in excess of provisions provided and available insurance,
they will be charged to income when determinable.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Reserves $90MM for PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved approximately $90 million in total for asbestos-
related bodily injury claims, 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.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company. The
reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the
estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters,
which could be material.

At December 31, 2013 and 2012, Generation had reserved
approximately $90 million and $63 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31,
2013, approximately $19 million of this amount related to 224 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $71 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not apply to preclude such employee from
suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling
reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court
precluding current and former employees from suing their employers
in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible
for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more
than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure
to asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to
predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional
claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no
increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been
recorded as of December 31, 2013. Increased claims activity
resulting from this ruling could have a material adverse impact on
Exelon, Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and
cash flows.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation)
subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning
asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises
liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.

Approximately 486 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which
have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:

   * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
     allegedly worked as contractors;

   * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

   * the dates on which and the places where the exposure
     allegedly occurred; and

   * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Recorded $846.2-Mil Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) recorded $846.2 million for its
total asbestos-related liabilities, 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 wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company
(IR-New Jersey) or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege
injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily
pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor
Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some
formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing
components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party
suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
     forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
     exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
     likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as
     mesothelioma and lung cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non
     malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of
     malignant diseases filed against the Company relative to the
     number of lung cancer claims filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
     to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
     Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and
     the Company's most recent three-year claims history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of
     disease claimed and by year filed;

   * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history
     to determine the average settlement and resolution value of
     claims, by type of disease claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
     value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
     downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of
     claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population;
     and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
     likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
     future.

At December 31, 2013, over 80 percent of the open claims against
the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been
placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of
which have little or no settlement value against the Company,
particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial
treatment of such claims.

At December 31, 2013, the Company recorded $846.2 million for its
total asbestos-related liabilities and $321.8 million for its
total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $137.6 million and $172.0 million at December
31, 2013, and $125.5 million and $194.8 million at December 31,
2012, respectively.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the total cost associated
with the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims after
insurance recoveries was $56.2 million.

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of December 31, 2013. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

On January 12, 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that have been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves certain of IR-New
Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos
claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The
responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to
recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013,
IR-New Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an
insurer that was not a party to the 2012 action.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
     IR-New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other
     companies in recovering under their insurance policies,
     including Trane's favorable settlement discussed above;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
     terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
     Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had
     been the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations described above, are expected to result in the
projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the
probable insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it
has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and
residential security businesses named Allegion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Resources Has 50 Pending Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. continues to defend itself against
approximately 50 cases alleging asbestos exposure, 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 Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs
Steamship Company have been named defendants in 489 actions
brought from 1986 to date by former seamen claiming damages for
various illnesses allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to
airborne asbestos fibers while serving as crew members aboard the
vessels previously owned or managed by our entities until the mid-
1980s. All of these actions have been consolidated into
multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
along with approximately 30,000 other cases from various
jurisdictions that were filed against other defendants. Through a
series of court orders, the docket has been reduced to
approximately 3,500 active cases. The Company is a named defendant
in approximately 50 cases. These cases are in the discovery phase.
The court has dismissed the remainder of the cases without
prejudice. Those dismissed cases could be reinstated upon
application by plaintiffs' counsel. The claims against our
entities are insured in amounts that vary by policy year; however,
the manner in which coverage will be applied remains uncertain.
Our entities continue to vigorously contest these claims and have
made no settlements on them.

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an international mining and
natural resources company. The Company is an iron ore producer and
a producer of metallurgical coal. The Company's operations are
organized according to product category and geographic location:
U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron Ore, North American Coal,
Asia Pacific Iron Ore, Asia Pacific Coal, Latin American Iron Ore,
Ferroalloys, and its Global Exploration Group. The Company
operates in four segments: U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron
Ore, North American Coal and Asia Pacific Iron Ore. In the United
States, it operates five iron ore mines in Michigan and Minnesota,
five metallurgical coal mines located in West Virginia and Alabama
and one thermal coal mine located in West Virginia. It also
operates two iron ore mines in Eastern Canada that primarily
provide iron ore to the seaborne market for Asian steel producers.
On May 12, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of
Consolidated Thompson Iron Mining Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hokanson" Suit Remanded to N.J. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary L. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey remanded to state court the asbestos-related
personal injury action styled KAY HOKANSON, as Attorney-in-Fact of
CLARENCE RALPH HOSFORD, and Individually, Plaintiff, v. KERR
CORPORATION; PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., Individually and as
successor to Patterson Dental Company; PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY,
INC.; and GROBET USA, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4534
(MLC)(D.N.J.), abiding by the line of "cases holding that a non-
forum defendant cannot remove a case where there are unserved
forum defendants."  A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's March 10,
2014, memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/lKam1dfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preference Granted in "Kestenbaum" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Preference is granted by the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, First Department, in IN RE: NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to KESTENBAUM, v. DUREZ CORPORATION
-- UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, 2014 NY Slip Op 66094(U)(N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Court's March 11, 2014, decision
is available at http://is.gd/H5s9W4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the appeal styled ROM REINSURANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., ET.
AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
Respondent, 11809, 654480/12 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, found
that the Supreme Court, New York County, erred in its April 22,
2013, noting that its conclusion is supported by Volt Info.
Sciences, Inc. v Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ.
(489 U.S. 468 [1989]) in which the Court held that where "parties
have agreed to abide by state rules of arbitration, enforcing
those rules according to the terms of the agreement is fully
consistent with the goals of the FAA, even if the result is that
arbitration is stayed where the Act would otherwise permit it to
go forward."  The dispute is related to Thorpe Insulation and/or
J.T. Thorpe asbestos-related claims.  A full-text copy of the
Court's March 11, 2014, decision is available at
http://is.gd/H2E5wVfrom Leagle.com.

Appellants are represented by:

         Benjamin N. Gonson, Esq.
         Nicoletti Gonson Spinner, LLP
         555 Fifth Avenue, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Tel: (212) 730-7750
         Fax: (212) 730-7850

Michael S. Olsan, Esq. -- olsanm@whiteandwilliams.com -- at White
and Williams LLP, in New York, for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankrupt's Suit v. Condo Owner Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------
In December 2005, Christie purchased a condominium unit at Harbor
Towers.  In January 2009, she said she experienced physical
symptoms related to exposure to asbestos that was removed from her
bedroom's ceiling and continued to be exposed to the hazardous
materials through June 2009.  In August of 2008, while
construction was ongoing at Harbor Towers, Christie filed for
bankruptcy.  Christie sued Harbor Towers asserting claims arising
from her exposure to asbestos.  The action was dismissed, and
Christie appealed.  On appeal, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts
was asked whether Christie has standing to bring claims arising
out of renovation of the building systems in her condominium
building that allegedly resulted in personal injuries and property
damage given that when she filed for bankruptcy she did not
include these claims as an asset in that proceeding; and if
Christie does not have standing, whether dismissal is the
appropriate remedy.

The Appeals Court, in a memorandum and order, remanded and
instructed the Superior Court to stay the proceedings to allow the
bankruptcy proceeding to be reopened.  The Appeals Court held that
Christie's claims have sufficient prepetition roots and are not
entangled with Christie's ability to make an unencumbered fresh
start.  The Appeals Court concluded that Christie presently lacks
standing to bring the claims on her own behalf because they are
still within the bankruptcy estate.  The Appeals Court said
dismissing the claims outright would create a windfall for the
defendants, if they engaged in the alleged wrongful acts, and the
bankruptcy estate, as the real party in interest, should be
afforded an opportunity to pursue the claims.  As a result, the
Appeals Court directed the Superior Court to stay the case and
notify the federal bankruptcy court to allow the bankruptcy
proceeding to reopen and have the claims added as an asset.

The case is KAREN CHRISTIE, vs. HARBOR TOWERS CONDO TRUST I & II &
others, NO. 13-P-377 (Mass. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Appeals Court's Decision dated Feb. 21, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/IcB50Nfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Monongahela Insurance Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Washington County in the case captioned TIG
INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, ET AL., NO. 31,
SEPTEMBER TERM 2013 (Md.), regarding the interpretation of
insurance policies that may cover asbestos-related liability,
ruled that Pennsylvania law applied to all policies at issue in
the lawsuit.  One of the insurers, TIG Insurance Company, appealed
to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit
Court's ruling.  TIG filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the Court of Appeals of Maryland to review the Court of Special
Appeals' decision.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Special Appeals Court's decision
and adopted its well-reasoned opinion, with the exception of its
two-paragraph discussion addressing TIG's argument that the place
of countersigning a policy determines the applicable state law.
The Court of Appeals pointed out that TIG's argument concerning
the countersignature provision was not preserved in the Circuit
Court and the record was insufficiently developed on that issue.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals explicitly did not adopt the two
paragraphs of the Court of Special Appeals' opinion that discuss
that issue, and expressed no opinion as to the merits of the
court's analysis of that issue.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Feb. 24, 2014, decision
penned by Judge Robert N. McDonald is available at
http://is.gd/zfcEsyfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants in Ala. PI Suits Win Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, issued a ruling on
Feb. 21, 2014, in two mesothelioma lawsuits, holding that the
motions for summary judgment filed by defendants MeadWestvaco
Corporation and MW Custom Papers, LLC, are due to be granted.

The actions were originally filed in the Circuit Court of St.
Clair County, Alabama, against numerous defendants, including The
Mead Corporation and MeadWestvaco.  The gravamen of all of the
claims in the two lawsuits were the allegations that the deceased
plaintiffs had contracted mesothelioma as a result of their
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while they were working in,
among other places, The Cement Asbestos Products Company.

Judge Smith said a final judgment consistent with his opinions
will be entered.

The first case is Patricia Archer, Individually and as Personal
Representative of THE ESTATE of CHARLES RICHARD ARCHER Plaintiff,
v. MEAD CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-05-S-
2466-M (N.D. Ala.).  A full-text copy of Judge Smith's decision is
available at http://is.gd/CDKsT8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Affirms Misrepresentation Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel composed of Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Stanley
Marcus and Peter T. Fay of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling granting summary
judgment to the defendants in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS UHLIG,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARBY BANK & TRUST CO., et al.,
Defendants, DRAYPROP, LLC, DRAYPARK, LLC, MICHAEL BROWN, MARLEY
MANAGEMENT, INC., REUBEN CROLL, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-
14989 (11th Cir.).

Thomas Uhlig made a bet in a high-rise condominium building in
downtown Savannah, Georgia.  He sued the defendants after being
frustrated with the pace of renovations and what he felt were
misrepresentations about the presence of asbestos and the need for
abatement in the condominium.

The Circuit Court ruled that Uhlig's claims against Brown and
Croll fail because Uhlig cannot show that either man acted as an
individual, not on behalf of one of a number of LLCs.  Uhlig's
claims against Drayprop and Marley also fail, this time because
for each claim -- breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation,
and fraudulent misrepresentation -- Uhlig lacks any evidence
supporting at least one essential element, the Circuit Court
further ruled.

A full-text copy of the Circuit Court's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/3wtK2Sfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Limitations Bar Claims v. Federal-Mogul
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, in a product liability action arising
out of alleged asbestos exposure, granted the defendants' motion
for judgment on the ground that the limitations has expired.

As of Dec. 27, 2007, the effective date of the plan of
reorganization for Federal-Mogul, the Defendants were granted a
discharge and the automatic stay was lifted.  Because the
limitations period for the Plaintiff Nora Barraford's claim had
expired while the Defendants were in bankruptcy, the Plaintiff had
30 days from Dec. 27, 2007, to file suit, under the provisions of
the Plan, unless another non-bankruptcy law or agreement extended
the period to file.  The Plaintiff did not file its action until
November 2012, nearly five years after that 30-day window expired.
The Bankruptcy Code does not operate to save the Plaintiff's
claims from dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, Judge
Saylor ruled.

The case is NORA M. BARRAFORD, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of DANIEL M. BARRAFORD, by her agent THE FEDERAL-MOGUL
ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. T & N LIMITED, f/k/a
T&N PLC, f/k/a Turner & Newall Plc, and f/k/a Turner & Newall
Limited; and TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a Turners Asbestos
Fibres Limited, and Raw Asbestos Distributors Limited, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-10013-FDS (D. Mass.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Saylor's Decision dated Feb. 25, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/YsF127from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Phillips" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiff David Phillips' motion to
remand his asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit back to San
Francisco superior court, holding that the Plaintiff has expressly
disclaimed and waived any claim arising out of or related to any
asbestos exposure aboard federal jobsites and navy vessels.  This,
Judge Wilken, said removes any claims to which military contractor
immunity might act as a defense.

The case is DAVID PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-5655 CW (N.D. Calif.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Wilken's Feb. 26, 2014, Order is available
at http://is.gd/EsQ6zAfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Baldwin" Suit Remanded to Del. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware in a Feb. 26, 2014, report and recommendation,
recommended that the motion to remand to state court filed in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned PAULA BALDWIN,
AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE BALDWIN SR., AND PAULA
BALDWIN, INDIVIDUALLY Plaintiff, v. ACE HARDWARE CORP., et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1986-SLR-SRF (D.Del.), be granted,
after finding that defendant Crane Co.'s notice of removal was
untimely.  A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/n6bCxKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Homeowners' Insurance Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
on Feb. 28, 2014, affirmed a trial court's order granting Allstate
Insurance Company summary judgment in a bad faith action brought
by insured homeowners, Robert and Patricia Meuser, arising from
Allstate's handling of their fire loss claims.

In the lawsuit, the Meusers maintain, among other things, that
Allstate concealed asbestos benefits available under their policy,
failed to produce documents relevant to a potential claim for
those benefits, and caused them to lose out on approximately
$6,500 in asbestos-related policy benefits.

The Court of Appeals held that "As an initial matter, the policy
provided no 'asbestos benefits.'  It did cover demolition costs
and presumably would have covered asbestos testing or abatement
required in connection with demolition, if any asbestos had been
present at sufficient levels.  There was no actual evidence any
asbestos had been present at a level requiring abatement upon
demolition.  The Meusers' own expert found no trace of asbestos at
the site, and there was no evidence the Meusers suffered any
injury or damage as a result of the lack of testing or abatement.
As for nondisclosure of "claims-related" documents, the trial
court correctly found no violation.  The blank, unused forms in
issue were not claim-related documents as defined in the standard
form language that was part of Allstate's policy.  As the trial
court found, there was no evidence to support any cause of action
based on Allstate's alleged concealment of asbestos benefits or
documents."

The case is ROBERT MEUSER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, NO. A136243
(Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Court's decision is
available at http://is.gd/b5grN3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company's Bid to Dismiss "Soucy" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy Torresen of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine on Feb. 27, 2014, denied defendant Toro Company's motion
to dismiss the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned
TAMMIE D. SOUCY, individually and as personal representative of
the estate of BRYAN SOUCY, Plaintiff, v. BRIGGS & STRATTON
CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-00068-NT
(D.Me.), holding that, ultimately, the Plaintiff may be required
to identify the particular asbestos-containing Toro products to
which Soucy was exposed but in some circumstances, it may not be
necessary to identify the particular products to demonstrate
liability.  A full-text copy of Judge Torresen's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/gfzDszfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Testimony in Utah PI Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion to exclude specific
causation testimony from plantiff Arva Anderson's medical
causation witness, Dr. Jerrold Abraham, finding that Dr. Abraham's
opinion is clearly based on the Plaintiff's testimony in
combination with other scientific evidence.

The case is ARVA ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:06-CV-741 TS (D. Utah).  A full-text
copy of Judge Stewart's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/NIXeHefrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Citrano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis C. Citrano, now deceased, sued General Electric Company and
others for strict liability and other state law tort claims.  The
plaintiff sued GE and other defendants in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City for injuries resulting from his exposure to
asbestos from 1960 to the late 1970s while working as an
electrician.  GE removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Northern Division.  Pending is the
Plaintiff's motion to remand or to sever and remand the claims of
the non-removing defendants.

District Judge William D. Quarles, Jr., on Feb. 26, 2014, denied
the motion, finding that the Plaintiff's six state law tort claims
against 36 non-removing defendants substantially predominate over
the single federal issue in the case -- GE's assertion of the
federal officer defense.  However, Judge Quarles ruled that if
GE's federal defense fails and it is found liable in federal
court, severing the claims will likely prejudice GE's ability to
seek contribution through cross claims against the other
defendants proceeding in state court.

The case is DENNIS C. CITRANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CRANE-
HOUDAILLE, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. WDQ-13-2158
(D.Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Quarles' memorandum opinion
http://is.gd/HQI3iDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Says Fibro Causes Autoimmune Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma, citing a scholarly study out of Idaho
State University, reported that mesothelioma and lung cancer are
not the only risks associated with exposure to toxic minerals like
asbestos. The study finds that asbestos also has a negative effect
on the immune system.

Once heavily used in construction and manufacturing, asbestos has
been known for decades as the cause of mesothelioma, a rare but
serious cancer. In recent years, another mineral called erionite
has been suspected of causing mesothelioma. In the US, erionite
has been found in gravel mined and used on roads, particularly in
the state of North Dakota.

Although the risks of mesothelioma from erionite and asbestos are
understood, less is known about the immune system's response to
these minerals.  In a report in Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology, researchers used immune system cells called
macrophages derived from bone marrow to measure the toxic effects
of erionite and amphibole asbestos. They found that both compounds
increased the production of cytokines, a measure of immune system
activation.

In addition, the research team exposed mice to equal amounts of
either erionite or asbestos in their tracheas. When their blood
serum was examined seven months later, both categories of mice
were found to have more frequent anti-nuclear antibodies and
elevated levels of several key immune system proteins. An
examination of their kidneys found that immune system waste
products were increased from 33% in mice treated only with saline
to 90% among the erionite-exposed mice.

As a result of improved public education, many people are now
aware of the connection between asbestos and mesothelioma, but
even those who have been exposed may be unaware of the threat to
their immune systems. In a summary of their findings, the Utah
research teams conclude, "These data demonstrate that both
erionite and amphibole asbestos induce autoimmune responses in
mice, suggesting a potential for adverse effects in exposed
communities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Slows Down St. Nicholas House Demolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that the demolition of the former headquarters
of the city council of Aberdeen, in Scotland, has been "slowed
down" by the discovery of asbestos, the local authority has said.

Asbestos has been found in some of the divisions between units of
windows at St Nicholas House.  Work on the tower has slowed, but
is continuing elsewhere on the site.

More than 1,000 council staff vacated the 14-storey building,
erected in 1968, for the newly-refurbished Marischal College
building in 2011.

The Health and Safety Executive has been informed of the
discovery.  A council spokesperson said: "This discovery was
entirely unexpected and could not have been reasonably foreseen.

"There is no risk to public health."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Drilling Mud Exposure a Concern Years Later
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
one of the recurring themes with asbestos, whether dealing with
asbestos drilling mud, asbestos in construction or asbestos in any
of a number of other industries, is that asbestos exposure can
come back to haunt a person many years later. And it does not
matter if a person was exposed to asbestos through drilling mud or
any other manner, that exposure has been linked to illness decades
after the fact.

Workers who used asbestos in drilling mud, mixing it into the mud
for its bonding and heat-resistant qualities, were routinely
exposed to asbestos from the 1960s to the 1980s, often without the
proper protective gear, putting them at risk of serious health
problems such as mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer. These
workers can include mud engineers, roughnecks, mudhands, drillers
and floorhands. Decades after they were exposed to asbestos, they
can be diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases.

Some of these workers have filed lawsuits against the companies
they hold responsible for their asbestos exposure, for failing to
protect employees from the carcinogen. According to Law360, 10
plaintiffs filed a lawsuit (case number 3:13-dv-00477) against a
variety of oil companies, alleging the companies knowingly exposed
workers to asbestos, causing the workers to develop "asbestos
maladies."

In fact, many asbestos lawsuits allege the companies involved
either knew or should have known about the risks to their
employees of asbestos exposure, but failed to either warn
employees or properly protect them. Over the course of a career in
certain industries, employees could be exposed to asbestos from a
number of sources, and a variety of companies, which is one reason
many asbestos lawsuits involve a number of defendants.

One asbestos drilling mud lawsuit resulted in an award of $322
million for the plaintiff, who alleged he developed asbestosis as
a result of asbestos exposure while mixing drilling mud. That
award, however, was thrown out after the defendants, Union Carbide
Corp., argued the judge was biased because his parents had been
involved in similar litigation. On a second trial, a jury found in
favor of Union Carbide Corporation, according to Associated Press.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Reopening of Tyne Tunnels
-------------------------------------------------------
ITV.com reported that refurbishment works on the historic Grade
II-listed Tyne Pedestrian and Cyclist Tunnels, in the United
Kingdom, are to take longer than expected because of asbestos.

The tunnels are now expected to re-open in February 2015. The
replacement shuttle bus and the night service for shift workers
will continue.  The tunnels were expected to re-open in August
this year. They closed for refurbishment in May 2013.

Paul Fenwick, project director for the tunnel's owner, stated
"Conditions in the tunnel have proved a lot worse than we
anticipated and major works to treat asbestos containing
materials, the presence of which we could have had no knowledge of
before the works started, are now necessary if the tunnels are to
continue to be an important transport link for future generations.

"The alternative transport measures we put in place -- providing a
free replacement shuttle bus and a Night Service -- have proved
highly successful and will continue until the tunnels re-open."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Considering Abatement at Windsor Center
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Crighton, writing for Journal Inquirer, reported that the
council of Windsor, Connecticut, began deliberations on a $310,000
project to remove floor tiles containing asbestos from L.P. Wilson
Community Center.

There are approximately 18,000 square feet of asbestos floor tiles
throughout the corridors at the building, many of which are in
poor condition and in need of removal, Public Works Director Brian
Funk said.  The project would remove up to approximately 15,000
square feet of tile throughout various areas of the building and
replace it with vinyl tile. Staff would prioritize areas that are
of greatest concern, Funk said, but also would take into
consideration the logistics of the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reclaim Fibro Care Costs Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Press Association reported that the medical costs of treating
people who suffered "industrial" diseases linked to asbestos could
be reclaimed under legislation lodged at the Scottish Parliament.

More than GBP20 million is spent each year by the NHS in Scotland
diagnosing and treating people from the effects of exposure to
asbestos, including diseases like mesothelioma, according to
pressure group Clydeside Action on Asbestos.

Phyllis Craig, who chairs the group, said: "We are urging the
Scottish Parliament to address this issue as a priority.

"It is widely accepted that the number of people being diagnosed
with mesothelioma continues to increase, placing an ever greater
burden on the NHS and palliative care services.

"The responsibility for meeting these costs rests with the
employers who exposed their employees to asbestos, contributing to
the development of their illness.

"It is only just that the employers have to meet the costs of care
that result from their negligence."

Alan Kirk, a surgeon and director of the group, estimated the cost
for diagnosing and managing mesothelioma -- a tumour on the lining
of the lung -- runs to about GBP60,000 a patient.

"If these sums can be recovered as part of the civil compensation
case, funds are going back into the NHS to help to care for the
Scottish population," he said.

The group is working with SNP MSP Stuart McMillan to change the
law.  He said: "The emotional and physical cost of being diagnosed
with an asbestos related condition can be significant and it's the
welfare of the person with the illness that is paramount.

"However, there is a substantial financial cost to the NHS in
diagnosing and managing asbestos related conditions and this is
something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency."

Mr McMillan said he expects strong resistance to the move from
insurers.  But it is supported by the Scottish Trades Union
Congress (STUC).

Dave Moxham, deputy leader of the STUC, said: "The insurance
industry has managed to avoid meeting their full responsibilities
towards those with an asbestos related disease for decades.

"It is vital that people who are undergoing investigations for
suspected asbestos related disease, or who need ongoing care and
support to manage their condition, can access the health services
that they need.

"The NHS and palliative care services currently have to meet these
costs from their own overstretched funds.

"It is time for the employers and the insurance industry to meet
their obligations and reimburse the cost of the medical care as
these costs would not exist if there had not been negligence on
the part of the employer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Denies Writing Letter During Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that as a rare asbestos trial continues in Madison County, Ill.,
day three was devoted entirely to the testimony of plaintiff
witness Dr. Berry Castleman, who works in the field of toxic
substances control.

While a large majority of Castleman's testimony traced the
timeline of public knowledge of asbestos dangers from 1898 until
after the 1970s, defense attorney Jim Lowery briefly strayed from
the narrow line of questioning during cross examination to mention
a letter believed to be written by Castleman to medical researcher
Irving Selikoff urging him to seal parts of his research.

Lowery asked Castleman if he ever asked Selikoff not to disclose
portions of his research in a memorandum.

Castleman said he recognized the memorandum only from a previous
allegation in a trial in 2010, and added that if it had actually
come from him, it likely would have had a signature and a
letterhead, which it did not.

"I have no memory of writing this and I don't recognize it,"
Castleman said.

The memorandum in question was allegedly written on Nov. 5, 1979,
and proposes the idea that attorney Ron Motley, who founded the
Motley Rice law firm and passed away last year, believed defense
lawyers were attempting to avert liability by showing that
insulators knew of the asbestos-related risks of their jobs.

Castleman said during his testimony that he worked with Motley's
firm, but never testified on his behalf.

The letter goes on to suggest that defendants would try to obtain
questionnaire materials used in his studies in order to pinpoint
where the workers first became aware of the dangers.

"Ron and other plaintiffs lawyers are afraid that some of the men
would have answered with 20-20 hindsight, recalling vaguely that
'I heard something back in the early 40s,'" the letter stated.

"Discovery of each statements in writing, even though made without
much care and without any knowledge that rights to compensation
might be jeopardized, without any consultation with their
attorneys, could throw out individual claims," it continued,
"further, a significant number of such statements pre-1964 would
hurt the state-of-the-art case for all the plaintiffs."

Aside from the brief interruption, Castleman began his testimony
with the history of knowledge relating to asbestos and health
risks.

Under questioning by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, he testified
that the first published article about asbestos and its hazards in
the English language was a government document in 1898 submitted
to the British Parliament.

"Where (asbestos particles) are allowed to rise and remain
suspended in the air of a room, in any quantity, the effects have
been found to be injurious, as might have been expected," the
article stated.

Castleman said that prior to the 1930s, asbestos articles focused
on minors and factory workers making the products. Then in the
early 1930s asbestos disease cases spread to those who used the
asbestos-containing products and clerical workers in asbestos
factories.

In 1946, maximum allowable concentrations, later called threshold
limit values, were established, which suggested five million
particles of asbestos dust per cubic foot of air or less was
acceptable.

The threshold was merely advised rather than required, and was
based on studies concluding that workers exposed to a greater
concentration of asbestos had an increased risk of developing
disease.

Castleman, who received a doctorate in public health, said five
million particles per cubic foot appears like regular air, adding
that if workers are exposed to visible dust clouds then the
concentration is at dangerous levels. While no exposure is
necessarily considered safe, corporations needed obtainable
standards that were technologically possible.

Castleman added that there would have to be 50 to 60 million
particles per cubic foot of air in order to appear hazy, which is
roughly 10 times greater than the advised amount.

During cross examination by Lowery, he questioned Castleman on the
leniency of the threshold, which is presented as a tentative
placeholder until more information on health hazards involving
asbestos is available, but it was not a standard law.

"It wasn't the law of the land and it wasn't taken seriously as
far as I can tell," Castleman said.

"So we can add the state Legislature to the list of corporations
who let these people die, correct?" Lowery asked in response.

"It sounds like there's a hint of conspiracy there," he added.

By the 1950s, articles linking asbestos exposure and cancer
development made their way to the general public through magazines
and newspapers.

However, warning labels were not required by the government and
big companies would be at a "competitive disadvantage" by
including warning labels on their products, Castleman said.

"I call it the Wild Wild West Era," Castleman said.

During cross examination, Castleman recognized that studies as
early as 1930s attempted to establish safety standards when
working with asbestos, including wetting the mineral to avoid dust
and proper respiratory protection.

Lowery also addressed two studies that specifically said gaskets
are not hazardous.  He first presented the Fleischer Drinker study
from 1946 that focused primarily on Navy ships to determine if
people working with pipe covering had an increased risk of
asbestos-related illness.

Castleman pointed out, however, that a disclaimer at the bottom of
the front page clarifies that the opinions are not to be construed
as those of the Navy.

Lowery then brought up a 1971 P.G. Harries article focusing on an
approach to improving asbestos exposure in the Navy.

Castleman found the ideas inconsistent but couldn't confirm their
accuracy.

Was Crane Co. aware of the hazards?

During Castleman's testimony, Wathen switched gears and focused on
Crane Co.'s advertising methods beginning in the 1940s, listing a
number of magazines and articles addressing asbestos dangers in
which Crane Co. provided advertisements for their products.

Castleman testified that he agrees it is reasonable to assume
Crane Co. was not unaware of asbestos hazards and that it was
reasonable to provide warnings.

"It was reasonable in the sense that that's what these workers
would have expected to be done," he said.

During cross examination, Castleman agreed there is no evidence
that Crane Co. received the magazines in which they advertised.

An article from 1944 and another from 1946 were shown to the jury
as examples of the magazines Crane Co. advertised in, both of
which discussed asbestos along with a number of other industrial
toxins. Neither of the articles connected asbestos to cancer.

However, he added that he would be "amazed" if Dr. Andrew Harvey
didn't read the articles. Harvey was Crane Co.'s industrial
physician at the time.

Lowery turned the tables on Castleman bringing up some of the
articles he wrote, asking him to name just one other article in
those journals. Castleman testified that couldn't remember those
articles now -- years later -- but that he probably read them at
one point.

What about the Navy?

During cross examination, Lowery then switched gears to the Navy's
knowledge of the health risks asbestos-containing products posed
for employees.

Castleman began by pointing out that in his studies, he was
specifically interested in the Navy's documentation of its
awareness of asbestos hazards, unconcerned with the products used
aboard the ships and when.  He said the Navy knew of asbestos
dangers as early as 1943 and was looking for ways to minimize dust
accumulation.

Lowery suggested during questioning that the Navy has complete
control aboard its vessels and asked if there was nothing Crane
Co. did that the Navy did not already know pertaining to the
hazards.

Castleman agreed, but said he doesn't believe everyone aboard the
ships knew about the potential asbestos dangers.  Ultimately,
though, Castleman contends that the sellers or manufacturers of
the products understand their hazards better than the buyer. The
manufacturer knows how the product is intended to be used and
knows that forms of testing should be done, he said.

"If they have the knowledge that the dust is lethal, then they
know all the ways their product could generate dust," he
continued.

Industrial hygienists and physicians can attempt to understand
products, but they wouldn't know them like the manufacturer,
Castleman said.

"Nobody knows better than the manufacturer how the products are
used," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geologists Take on Key Health Problem
------------------------------------------------------
Susan M. Reiss, writing for Livescience.com, reported that a new
breed of geologists is going beyond traditional fields and rocking
the connection between living organisms and earth materials.

Steven Lower and Eric Taylor are part of this new breed. While
Taylor, now a professor at Kent State University, was a doctoral
student in Lower's Ohio State University lab, the two embarked on
a study to discover the molecular mechanism driving mesothelioma,
an incurable form of cancer that affects the lung, chest cavity
and the lining of the abdomen.

This aggressive cancer can develop when humans are exposed to
asbestos, a term that refers to six naturally occurring silicate
mineral fibers. To learn more about how these fibers may trigger
cancer development, Taylor and Lower focused on crocidolite or
blue asbestos, the deadliest of the fibers. Because crocidolite is
long and thin, it can lodge among the lungs' mesothelial cells,
which secrete lubricant to maintain the lung's slippery,
protective coating. Unlike another asbestos fiber, chrysotile,
which the lungs can flush out, crocidolite never dissolves and
persists in the lungs for many years.

Through a series of experiments, the geologists tested whether
crocidolite binds to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a
protein receptor on the lung cell surface that initiates cell
division. They found that crocidolite continually binds and
unbinds with EGFR. When it does so, "crocidolite signals or
triggers a potent response that may tell the cells to
proliferate," says Lower. "This may help explain why cancer
develops."

The geologists suspect that creating a small molecule that can
coat crocidolite fibers may prevent the fibers from binding to
EGFR, and thereby prevent the proliferation of cancer cells.
Although the development of such a molecule probably is several
years away, Taylor worked with chemist Roberto Lins at the Federal
University of Pernambuco, Brazil, to develop supercomputer
simulations to model the binding action of asbestos with EGFR.
Understanding exactly how crocidolite attaches to EGFR could help
the researchers tailor a molecule that would wedge between the two
substances.

Lower and Taylor published their findings in Langmuir, and several
more related papers are forthcoming. Lower is also pursuing
similar work with carbon nanotubes. "They are very similar to
asbestos, with their long, narrow shape, and a recent study
suggests that nanotubes can trigger a similar pathogenic response
as asbestos," he says. "There is some concern that nanotubes in
manufacturing could be a cancer issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wantirna Reserve Fenced Off After Fibro Detected
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas O'Byrne, writing for Maroondah Leader, reported that an
asbestos scare has forced a local council to fence-off an area of
a popular public reserve in east of Melbourne, Australia.

In a statement, Maroondah Council chief executive Frank Dixon said
material containing asbestos was uncovered during excavation works
at a section of the Dandenong Creek walking trail in Wantirna.
Dirt filling used during those excavations was also being
stockpiled at the nearby JW Manson Reserve -- a public reserve
which is regularly used by local cricket clubs.

Council's statement did not detail when the asbestos was
discovered, nor did it confirm whether the stockpiled material at
JW Manson Reserve had also tested positive for asbestos.  Council
had not responded to requests for further detail this afternoon.

Since the asbestos was discovered, Mr Dixon said both the
Dandenong Creek worksite and stockpile at JW Manson Reserve had
been covered, fenced and signed to ensure they remain contained.

"Any remedial action will be undertaken in line with EPA
requirements and with community safety at the forefront," Mr Dixon
said.

"Council will keep the community updated on the removal of the
stockpile material and the progression of the investigation."

Following a landslip in 2011, a section of the Dandenong Creek
walking trail was deemed unstable and was closed to the public.
Mr Dixon said further testing for asbestos will take place in the
areas of Dandenong Creek not yet excavated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Half of Coventry Schools Still Contain Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Gilbert, writing for Coventry Telegraph, reported that
asbestos can be found lurking in more than half of the schools in
Coventry, United Kingdom, figures show.

Some 50 of the 96 council-run schools in the city contain the
material which can be dangerous if disturbed.  Out of the 80
primary schools in the city, 44 were shown to contain asbestos
which has been linked to causing diseases such as terminal
mesothelioma and often fatal lung cancer.  Six of the city's eight
special schools -- caring for youngsters with physical or learning
disabilities -- were also found to contain the material.

The data was revealed following a Freedom of Information request
by the Telegraph to the council.  Health and safety chiefs say the
presence of asbestos alone should not cause concern -- as long as
it is managed properly.

Asbestos was used extensively as a building material in Britain
from the 1950s to the 1990s and is linked to around 4,500 deaths a
year. Serious, often fatal diseases, can be caused when asbestos
fibres are released from materials, becoming airborne and get
inhaled.  Asbestos has an average 30 to 40-years latency period
between exposure to asbestos fibres and the onset of disease.  The
substance is only likely to become dangerous if fibres are
released from the material when it is disturbed, damaged or
degrades over time.

Management of asbestos is the responsibility of head teachers at
individual schools.  It is each school's duty to know where it is,
what condition it is in and manage the risks from asbestos to
employees and others.  They must also ensure that anyone who is
likely to work on, or disturb, asbestos is provided with
information about its location and condition.

A spokesman for Coventry City Council said there were no plans to
pro-actively remove the substance from schools in the city.  He
said: "Each school has an asbestos assessment so it can identify
where it exists and ensure it is not disturbed to maintain the
safety of pupils and staff.

"If any refurbishment or extension work takes place that disturbs
existing asbestos then the asbestos would be removed safely at the
time of the building work."

The Health and Safety Executive explained many schools built
before the year 2000 contain some form of asbestos.  It is
commonly found in lagging, thermal insulation, fire protection,
partitioning and ducts, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, cement roofing
and guttering and textured coatings.

Guidance from HSE said: "A large number of schools and other
public buildings contain asbestos -- often in the fabric of the
building.

"Its presence alone should not cause concern provided it is
managed properly.

"There are strict legal duties on schools to manage asbestos
containing materials.

"Where HSE has undertaken inspections of schools it has found that
most have good standards for managing asbestos in their
buildings."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Scare at STATIN, Fibro Found on Premises
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gleaner reported that the leadership of the Statistical
Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) has gone quiet after an initial
report to staff that they might have been exposed to the deadly
cancer-causing agent, asbestos.

Sunday Gleaner sources say the fear of contracting cancer is
paralysing STATIN employees following five cancer-related deaths
from eight diagnoses.  While there is nothing to link these eight
cases to the hazardous lung cancer-causing material, the
administration at STATIN has confirmed that air-quality tests at
its head office at Cecelio Avenue, St Andrew, have shown traces of
asbestos, which is a mineral fibre commonly used in a variety of
building construction materials for insulation and as a fire
retardant.

Medical authorities have repeatedly warned that the inhaling of
small particles of asbestos can lead to lung cancer.  Persistent
exposure to asbestos fibres can cause asbestosis, a condition
where an accumulation of the fibres leads to the scarring of lung
tissue and shortness of breath, or mesothelioma -- a rare form of
cancer.

Several local institutions -- ranging from the National Water
Commission to the Jamaica Fire Brigade, St Joseph's Hospital and
the Downtown Kingston Craft Market -- have had to deal with their
own asbestos crises in recent years.  In most cases, staff or
users of the facilities were relocated while specialised teams
removed the threatening material.  But there is no word yet on
what is to be done at STATIN.

Repeated efforts to contact the director general of the agency,
Carol Coy, and her deputy, Shelly Winston, were unsuccessful.

                        PERSISTENT COUGH

But head of the Jamaica Civil Service Association, O'Neil Grant,
said representatives at the agency confirmed that traces of
asbestos were found after tests were done following a persistent
cough by an employee.

According to Grant, the test was done by the National Environment
and Planning Agency and an independent party.  He said traces of
asbestos was found near an air-conditioning duct.

Grant told our news team that following the disclosure, "employees
were barred from entering the area for a while as repair work was
done".  He confirmed that the staff was told about the findings of
the test after an employee presented a letter from a lawyer.

"Since then, no other information has been forthcoming," added
Grant, even as he indicated that there is no obvious link to the
present problem and the cancer-related deaths of some employees.

When our news team visited STATIN's head office, some employees
could be seen on the outside of the building as news spread that
an employee had developed respiratory problems, and a doctor had
determined that the cause of the illness was "environmental".

"Eight employees associated with STATIN for a long time took ill.
Five have died from cancer, two last year. In the space of two
weeks after they found out they have it, they died," claimed a
Sunday Gleaner source.

According to the source, on February 10, STATIN officials informed
the staff that asbestos was found at one of the intakes to an air-
conditioning duct. They source said the administration claimed the
area was covered on February 9.

                         SECOND TEST DONE

"Somebody there was having some respiratory problems and sought
medical attention and doctors did all relevant tests. The doctor
concluded that the illness must be environmental. A lawyer then
wrote the authorities at STATIN and an air-quality test was done a
few months ago," said the source.

The source said during the February 10 announcement, the
administration reported that a second air-quality test was done
after the area was covered, and the samples were sent to the
United States.

"The results were promised within a week, but a week gone and
people really jumpy because nothing has been said. Employees now
feel as if they are tied to a rope because they do not know if
missing work meant they were losing days.

"Seven of the eight persons diagnosed with cancer work upstairs,
where the vent is located, and one works downstairs," the source
told The Sunday Gleaner.

The source said news of the cancer diagnoses and deaths has set
hearts racing, with staff even more upset that the result of the
second air-quality test has not been made public despite being
promised within a week.  According to the source, "The fear of
lawsuits, plus the real fear of getting cancer, has turned
everybody into idiots, because it was one of the worst public-
relations job ever done. They never made the announcement through
the public-relations person. They went to the intercom, and from
people hear asbestos, they didn't want to hear anything else."

Added the source: "The fear of the unknown is killing people
because no one knows if the area was properly covered. They said
they are going to remove the asbestos, but no one knows how long
it's going to be in the air. Everybody afraid."

STATIN, an agency of the Ministry of Finance, is mandated to,
among its core functions, collect, compile, analyse, abstract and
publish statistical information relating to the commercial,
industrial, social, economic and general activities and condition
of the Jamaica people.  It also collaborates with public agencies
in the collection, compilation and publication of statistical
information, including statistical information derived from the
activities of such agencies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treatment for Fibro-Link Cancer Evaluated
----------------------------------------------------------
The Herald reported that scientists are to evaluate a potential
new treatment for patients with an aggressive form of lung cancer
which has been linked to asbestos exposure.

Eight clinical trial sites are being set up to investigate a way
of targeting cancer stem cells for people diagnosed with pleural
mesothelioma, which kills more than 2500 people each year. It can
take between 30 and 40 years to develop but when symptoms begin,
it can be too late for treatment.

Most sufferers, many of whom worked in construction, shipbuilding
or railways, die within 12 months of diagnosis. Doctors said
existing treatments were limited and there was an urgent need for
a new approach. A total of 11 countries are taking part in the
study, with eight research centres planned for the UK.  It comes
after legislation was lodged at the Scottish Parliament which
could pave the way for health boards to claw back the costs of
treating the victims of asbestos-related disease from former
employers.

West of Scotland MSP Stuart McMillan said there was a "substantial
financial cost to the NHS in diagnosing and managing asbestos-
related conditions".

Novelist James Kelman, who has campaigned for compensation for
asbestos victims, said it was "a step closer to getting industry
to take responsibility".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Lincoln Hospital Fibro Clean-up Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that Country Health SA says a clean-up of
asbestos at the hospital, in Port Lincoln, Australia, has begun,
in accordance with required practices.

Asbestos was recently discovered as part of a $39 million
redevelopment of the hospital.  A hospital insider has told the
ABC some workers are worried they may have been exposed to the
asbestos.

Country Health SA says work was immediately stopped in affected
areas, which were isolated to prevent any further disturbance.
Specialist consultants have been engaged and information sessions
held for staff and contractors to address their concerns.

The extent of asbestos and remediation costs are still being
determined.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dispute at Historic Younkers Bldg. Heats Up
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for Des Moines Register, reported that a
contractor initially involved in renovations at the former
Younkers building in downtown Des Moines claims that hundreds of
people are being exposed daily to asbestos or lead poisoning at
the site.

Multiple state officials say a complaint about the asbestos made
to 11 state and federal officials Jan. 29 is unfounded -- and a
company overseeing the renovation work filed a lawsuit this month
alleging multiple counts of libel against RedNet Environmental
Services of West Des Moines, the company making the asbestos
allegations.

A director of a national advocacy group for proper asbestos
cleanup additionally says that testing on the site appears to have
been done properly, which he concluded after being asked by the
Register to view the two environmental studies used for site
renovations.

But an official from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
which enforces federal environmental protection standards, said
investigators will revisit the site in light of the asbestos
allegations. The state environmental official told The Des Moines
Register that some construction work did in fact begin improperly,
which he described as a minor infraction that resulted in "a
serious discussion" with the contractors, but no formal fines or
actions.

In addition, the Register's investigation into the allegations
shows that none of the three state agencies involved in reviewing
the complaint filed by RedNet Environmental Services has requested
a copy of or compared two key reports that reach different
conclusions about the presence of asbestos in the former Younkers
building.

One of those reports, written by Iowa Environmental Services, led
an owner of RedNet, Rob Knudsen, to conclude the current situation
at the former Younkers building is "no different or maybe even
worse than the Equitable Building with Bob Knapp."

Knapp, a prominent Iowa developer, was sentenced in 2011 to 41
months in prison for his involvement in a conspiracy to ignore
federal asbestos regulations in redevelopment of another downtown
Des Moines building.

The 106-year-old former Younkers building, now known as the
Flagship Building, is expected to reopen in 2014 with 120
apartments and is billed as a cornerstone in Des Moines' efforts
to revitalize Walnut Street.

An attorney for Hansen Construction, a Johnston-based company in
charge of renovations, said he believes that RedNet's asbestos
allegations are a result of that company's failure to secure a
work agreement for the renovation project.

"Everything" is inaccurate in RedNet's Jan. 29 complaint, attorney
Jeffrey Stone of Des Moines told the Register. "There's not one
accurate statement in that letter as far as the allegations go."

RedNet's three-page letter to state and federal regulators alleges
multiple violations or unethical practices committed by Hansen
Construction. The allegations include:

   * That workers on the site are being told to throw away
     materials presumed to have asbestos without any testing.

   * That personal air monitoring is not being done nor is it
     being posted for people working at or visiting the site to
     see.

   * And that more than $120,000 worth of scrap metal has been
     removed by Hansen employees which "would be virtually
     impossible not to create an asbestos and lead disturbance."

The complaint also includes the July 26 letter Knudsen sent to a
Hansen official alleging disparities between two asbestos surveys
-- one by Iowa Environmental Services and another by New Horizons
Enterprises.

One disparity noted by Knudsen was that the Iowa Environmental
report showed asbestos in drywall on the structure's fifth and six
floors. The second report -- the one being used for ongoing
asbestos work during the renovations -- did not indicate any
presence of asbestos in those areas, Knudsen said.

Knudsen told the Register the differences between the reports
would equate to at least $200,000 in differences in cleanup costs.

"At the end of the day, this is about making sure people are
safe," said Knudsen, who also expressed concerns about lead
abatement at the site. "Lead will make you sick but asbestos will
kill you. And there's a 15- or 20-year latency period where you
have no idea where you were exposed to it."

Stone, the attorney for Hansen Construction, acknowledged
differences in the reports. But he said the owner of the building,
Alexander Co. of Madison, Wis., has reconciled the differences
with further tests and concluded some asbestos findings in the
first survey were inaccurate.

"You have to know about those testing procedures and the margin of
error," he said. "You could have the same company go out there
twice and probably get different results when it's that close."

However Tom Wuehr, a DNR official who helps enforce federal
asbestos standards, said that in light of the differences brought
to his attention by the Register, he will return to the site this
week to further investigate the issue.

"Certainly they are in possession of both reports and they need to
be going off of both of them," Wuehr said. "Because if one company
finds something and another doesn't, that doesn't mean you ignore
it. Once you have a positive you have a positive. Period. You
can't test your way out of it."

The second environmental survey contains far more testing than the
first one, said Brent Kynoch, the managing director of the
Environmental Information Association, a group based in Maryland
focused on health hazards in buildings, specifically asbestos. He
said he did not see any indication that Hansen Construction has
done anything improper, judging from his review of the complaints
from RedNet and both reports provided to him by the Register.

"Frankly, I read these reports and I think the whistle-blower has
some bad blood," Kynoch said of RedNet's complaints. "They lost a
job, and they're ticked off about it. If in fact they are as
knowledgeable about stuff as they appear to be then they should
know that the New Horizons report is significantly better than the
Iowa Environmental Services report."

Interviews or documents obtained by the Register show that
investigations made by three agencies -- an Iowa labor commission
inspector enforcing U.S. Department of Labor rules, the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources and the city of Des Moines -- did
not compare the two asbestos and lead reports. A fourth review
from the state's economic development authority simply adopted the
findings of the city without any review of its own, records show.

Iowa's labor commissioner, Michael Mauro, criticized the
allegations made by RedNet, Knudsen and his wife, Lynn, who wrote
the complaint about Hansen Construction.

"The charges they made were very straightforward, direct and -- to
be honest with you -- defaming," said Mauro, who helps oversee
guidelines established by the federal Occupational Safety & Health
Administration.

Mauro said a state inspector spent portions of two days on the
site and reviewed air tests that did not show signs of elevated
asbestos exposures.

"We responded to the charges and got our guys to go out there and
take a look. Based on what they've seen, there were no
violations," he said.

The DNR's Wuehr told the Register that Hansen employees did begin
some construction work before an asbestos abatement contractor was
on site a few months ago. Hansen employees did get into some
material that had asbestos, Wuehr said. He said, however, that the
amount of material that was improperly handled was "very low" and
that no fines or penalties were assessed.

"I went there and at that time we got things kind of straightened
out as far as slowing everything down and making sure the workers
don't get ahead of the asbestos abatement contractors," Wuehr
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Death Leads to Lawsuit v. Dupont
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kallies, writing for Southeast Texas' Legal Journal,
reported that a Jefferson County family is suing a company which
they claim exposed their now deceased patriarch to asbestos.

Virginia Furlong, wife, and Helen Furlong Moity, daughter of
William Ray Furlong, deceased, have filed a suit in the Jefferson
County District Court on Feb. 14, naming E.I. Dupont De Nemours
and Co. as the defendant.

The Furlongs accuse Dupont of knowingly exposing William Furlong
to toxic and carcinogenic dusts including asbestos while he worked
at Dupont's Works Facility in Beaumont.  According to the suit,
William Furlong developed mesothelioma from which he died in 2012.
His widow and daughter seek to hold Dupont liable for William
Furlong's death.  The Furlongs are seeking more than $100,000 in
damages.

They are being represented by attorney Darren L. Brown of the
Provost and Umphrey Law Firm.

Jefferson County District Court Case No. E0195-342


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Cannington Resident Fears Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
InMyCommunity.com reported that a resident in East Cannington,
West Australia resident has concerns for the health of his family
and neighbours after several structures containing asbestos were
demolished.

Desmond Bowers said he had been writing to the City of Canning for
several years raising concerns about the removal of the substance,
commonly found in houses and fences in Perth's established
suburbs.

Mr Bowers said he was frustrated by the lack of transparency
between the local government and residents when it came to notice
of removal of asbestos.

"A couple of apartments got knocked down in Gerard Street, East
Cannington, in a school zone, which could have sent fumes over to
the school and over to a daycare centre and my house," Mr Bowers
said. "In two years, it must have been seven or 10 sites that I've
told them about and not once have they been to my house to
investigate."

Mr Bowers said he saw dust released as he watched an asbestos
fence removed two weeks ago.

"They used this machine to take the contaminated soil away and
they had a little garden hose to try to water it down but lots of
the dust was going over the neighbourhood, heading towards St
Joseph's and St Norbert's School," he said.

Canning Commissioner Linton Reynolds said the City of Canning did
not routinely notify residents of the removal of asbestos.

"The City focuses on ensuring residents are safe by enforcing the
correct removal of asbestos," he said.

"The City carries out unannounced inspections of asbestos removal.

"There are minor works, such as fence removals or internal
modifications to a house, where there is no requirement for
approval from local government."

President of the Asbestos Diseases Association of Australia in
Osborne Park, Robert Vojakovic, said the public could not be
complacent of the risk asbestos poses as urban renewal projects
continue across the city.

"Demolition of homes that contain asbestos products can lead to
the release of asbestos fibres that pose a threat to everyone in
the immediate area of the demolition, such as neighbours,
pedestrians and workers without the correct protective equipment,"
Mr Vojakovic said.

Mr Vojakovic said it was no longer just workers who needed to be
wary.

"Recent studies have found the group of people in which there has
been a noticeable rise in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma
are women who have done renovations on their own homes," he said.

Mr Bowers said he would continue his petition for more
transparency from local government on the removal of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Greyfriars Bus Station
------------------------------------------------------
Northampton A 'significant' amount of asbestos has been identified
in the Greyfriars Bus Station ahead of the scheduled demolition of
the building.

A report submitted with a planning application to demolish the
building states asbestos has been found in insulation panelling,
cement panelling, fire doors and ceilings.

The first phase of the demolition works, due to begin on March 31,
will be to remove the asbestos "safely".

The report, written by Mike Kitchen, principal regeneration
officer, stated the work would generate "temporary noise,
vibration and air quality (dust) pollution and nuisance.

Mr Kitchen stated: "Noise will emanate from the deconstruction of
the building using the long-reach munchers."

"Further noise will be created by the crushing and sorting of the
recovered material on site," the report added.

It is estimated there will be 450 lorry movements from the site
during the demolition process that will be timed to avoid peak
periods of congestion.  The work will be carried out from 8am
until 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am until 1pm on Saturday.  There
will be an occasion, possibly Easter Sunday, when a full road
closure will be required to remove the bridges that go over Lady's
Lane and Greyfriars.

The report states that the only permanent impact arising from the
demolition would be the loss of Greyfriars and associated subways.
It stated: "Greyfriars is not subject to any specific local or
national designation and nor is it regarded as contributing
positively to the local environmental character or setting.

"Whilst the probability of the identified impacts occurring is
high, they are temporary in nature and the duration and frequency
will be timed so as to ensure the least disruption to neighbouring
uses.

"Detailed discussion have been held with Northamptonshire Highways
who are taking a holistic approach to the town centre network."

Site hoardings will be erected to ensure that members of the
public do not come into contact with the operations being carried
out on the site.  There are two electrical generators on the site
that will need to be removed.  A large cable that forms part of
the "power ring" servicing the town centre will also need to be
switched off.

Feral pigeons were the only form of wildlife found to be nesting
in the Greyfriars bus station, according to a specialist survey.
Bird experts carried out a survey of the building to check for any
signs of protected species, such as bats or barn owls nesting, but
no wildlife was found apart from pigeons.  It is estimated that
19,617 tonnes of material, 96 per cent of the building, will be
reused or recycled.

A substantial quantity of this material, including concrete, brick
and steel, will be used to fill in the passenger subways, the
passenger access to the bus bay and the Grosvenor Centre entrance.

The report also states a 46,000-litre diesel tank, five 205-litre
metal containers and an 800-litre anti-freeze tank will need to be
"isolated and protected" during the demolition phase to prevent
land contamination.

It is expected that it will take 36 weeks to demolish the bus
station.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Revolutionary Treatment Gives Victims New Life
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Chown Oved, writing for The Star, reported that like many
people who were exposed to asbestos, it took more than 20 years
before former Ontario Hydro mechanic Man Hong Chan knew anything
was wrong.

When he started feeling short of breath during his weekly soccer
matches, Chan went to the doctor and his worst fears were
confirmed: he had mesothelioma, one of the most aggressive forms
of lung cancer.

"It was scathing news. I was really scared," he said. "Most people
don't even last two years."

But thanks to a new therapy pioneered by a pair of Toronto
doctors, 74-year-old Chan has been cancer free for more than four
years.

The technique used by Dr. John Cho and Dr. Marc de Perrot at the
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre has doubled survival times in
patients with mesothelioma, according to research they published
last month. Their success has drawn attention from around the
world and they say doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota will
soon attempt to use their method.

Cho, a radiation oncologist, and de Perrot, a thoracic surgeon,
paired up to turn conventional treatment on its head, giving
patients radiation before surgery instead of after it. They've
dubbed the technique SMART, for Surgery for Mesothelioma After
Radiation Therapy, and Cho says three-year survival rates have
more than doubled, from 32 per cent to 72 per cent.

And because the study only started five years ago, survival rates
could be pushed further in the years to come.

Mesothelioma is caused when the microscopic fibres from asbestos
are inhaled and act like needles, slowly working their way into
the lining of the lungs over decades. What make the cancer so hard
to treat, Cho says, is that some of those fibres and affected
cells would escape during surgery and the cancer would spread
anew.

Traditional treatment removes the affected lung and then treats
the patient with radiation in hopes any lingering cancer will be
killed. Cho and de Perrot's program gives the patient a toxic dose
of radiation before surgery, ensuring that any cancer cells left
over afterward aren't viable.

Even though asbestos was banned in the early 1980s, 500 new cases
of mesothelioma are diagnosed in Canada each year and the number
is growing. Because of the 30-year gestation period, this rate
isn't expected to taper off for decades.

"The exposure has been reduced; it hasn't been eradicated," said
de Perrot. "The asbestos is still around and it's very likely that
(incidence of) the disease will still increase."

Even as the carcinogenic substance is being removed from buildings
across the country, asbestos brake pads and cement pipes are still
being imported into Canada.

Canada was long one of the world's biggest producers of asbestos
and continued to export it even after it was banned domestically.
Quebec closed its last asbestos mines in 2011.

While mesothelioma has been seen by many to be a death sentence --
average survival is only eight to 12 months -- early intervention
is granting patients a new lease on life.

The key to Cho and de Perrot's treatment is moving quickly. While
a patient typically waited six months for an intervention, Chan
had already undergone radiation therapy and surgery within a month
of his initial diagnosis.

"Our message to doctors and patients is to seek a referral early
on. Don't wait for additional screening. We can do the work
quickly. Early work can make a difference," said de Perrot.
In Chan's case, since his surgery, he's welcomed a new grandson
into the world. And while he can't play soccer like he used to,
he's still thankful.

"I'm lucky to have gotten rid of the cancer. You can't ask for
everything."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pennsylvania Man Files Fibro Exposure Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hart, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that a
Pennsylvania man is suing his former employers, claiming asbestos
exposure.

Milton M. Schuster Sr. filed a lawsuit Feb. 12 in the Philadephia
County Court of Common Pleas against CBS Corporation, Crane
Company, Foster-Wheeler Corporation, General Electric Company,
General Electric Co. Switchgear Department, General Electric
Capital Corporation, General Electric Capital Corporation, Goulds
Pumps Inc., Honeywell International, also known as Allied Signal,
Ingersoll-Rand Company, John Crane, Houdaille Inc., John Crane
Inc., Owens-Illinois Inc., Union Carbide Corporation and Warren
Pumps Inc., citing asbestos exposure.

Schuster alleges he was exposed to asbestos while working as a
machinist with or around products manufactured and distributed by
the defendants from 1954 through 1985. The suit alleges Schuster
was diagnosed on Dec. 12, 2013, as having asbestos-related lung
cancer, as a direct result of his exposure to asbestos.

He is being represented in the case by attorneys Michael B. Leh
and Melanie J. Garner.

Philadelphia County Court Case No. 140201290.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Interstate Waste Load Had Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte King and Stephanie Corsetti, writing for ABC News,
reported that the New South Wales, Australia environmental
watchdog has confirmed there was asbestos in a truck load of waste
that spilled onto the Sturt Highway this month.

The truck was travelling from Melbourne to Buronga, north of
Mildura in south west New South Wales, to dump waste at the
landfill when it rolled.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority's test results have now
confirmed the load was contaminated with asbestos.

The Region's Manager Craig Bretherton has issued a statement
revealing asbestos was detected in one of the test samples from
the waste load.

The New South Wales EPA says it's working with the Wentworth Shire
and the landfill operators to arrange for the safe disposal of
waste and the load has been stockpiled at the Buronga Landfill
pending the results.

Residents from the Wentworth Shire have raised questions about the
council's reasons for accepting waste from remote locations at the
Buronga landfill site.

The Victorian EPA says it's investigating the freight of waste
interstate and how that affects Victoria's landfill levy system.
The Authority says it's committed to ensuring there is a level
playing field between those doing the right thing in waste
management and those who are intent on under-cutting the system.
Both state authorities say they're working together to determine
where the asbestos came from.

Putting the brakes on interstate waste

The Wentworth Shire has published a response to the community's
waste concerns in the local newspaper.

The response confirms that waste from outside Sunraysia has been
trasported into Buronga Landfill since November 2013.

The council says it's now requested a full report about the
transportation of waste from Melbourne and other locations from
its current contractor, and says it will not allow asbestos to be
brought in from outside Sunraysia.  It also states that, in the
wake of the asbestos discovery in the truck load of waste from
Melbourne, the council has stopped receiving any waste from
outside Sunraysia until further notice.

The council says it'll consider delaying a decision about waste
contracts for the Buronga landfill that was to be made at a
special meeting.  The statement's author's reiterate that the
intention of developing the landfill site was to 'provide and
income stream' for the shire that 'would make its overall
operation more sustainable'.

"Council's strategy of expanding its operations is to counteract
the real possibility of waste from this Shire having to be
transferred elsewhere at a considerable cost to ratepayers," the
notice states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madisonville Bldg. Site of Fibro Probe
-------------------------------------------------------
Jess Raatz, writing for 14News.com, reported that the demolition
of an old manufacturing in Madisonville, Kentucky, is now on hold,
as the EPA looks into the working conditions of those doing the
job.

The "Do not enter" sign posted outside the old Goodyear plant in
Madisonville will stay put until the EPA is done investigating
what officials say could be a large amount of Asbestos in the
facility.

Officials with the city of Madisonville, the EPA, and licensed
testing contractors were on site. Officials took samples of what
they say could be a thick layer of Asbestos inside and outside the
plant.  Madisonville city officials say for about 4 weeks, S&S
Salvage had been working at the boiler plant without proper
permits.

City officials say the EPA had instructed S&S Salvage to gather
all employees who have worked on the side, as they could have been
exposed.

City officials are calling the plant a "Hot-site" and one of the
worst they've ever seen.

"They told us there is no danger for any of the surrounding people
as far as air quality like anyone around it unless there in the
immediate vicinity of the site. That's why we got the site locked
down," said Madisonville city official Frank Wallace.

14news did reach out to S&S Salvage for a comment on the EPA's
investigation but they have yet to return our call.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors Hear Late Victim's Testimony in Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that jurors in Madison County, Ill., were able to hear the
testimony of a now-deceased mesothelioma victim who served in the
U.S. Navy during an asbestos trial.

Tom King, Sr., filed his lawsuit last year in Madison County,
months before he died from mesothelioma on May 23, 2013, at age
71. Before his death, attorneys recorded King's video deposition
on Feb. 27-28, 2013.

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

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

King was a machinist mate for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and
again from 1965-1969, serving on the USS Forrestal, USS
Tallahatchie County and the USS Hollister.

He started as an E3 fireman on the Forrestal and worked his way up
to a machinist mate first class by the time he left the Navy
permanently in 1969.

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

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

More heavy duty repairs would take place at port or during
overhaul when the ship goes into dry dock for maintenance.

King testified that crew members were required to refer to a
manual every time they worked on a piece of equipment regardless
of their expertise in the department.  He added that he never saw
any warning signs or anything indicating that he needed to wear
respiratory protection in the manual.

While the manuals had the manufacturer's name on the front, he
could not verify if the manuals were generated by the Navy or the
manufacturers.

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

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

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

Recalling his work aboard the three ships he was stationed on,
King shared his experience working with pumps, valves and
insulation.  The packing inside the valves was used as a sealant
to prevent leaks. Because it only needed to be replaced if it was
leaking, the material would be damp and it wasn't always a dusty
process, King said.  However, King added that the process was a
difficult task.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King agreed that it was fair to say there were miles and miles of
pipe insulation aboard the ships and alleges that it was a Johns
Manville product.  During his testimony, King cautioned the
attorneys interviewing him that his memory was tainted slightly
due to his cancer treatments and reminded them that their
questions involved events from decades ago.

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


                             *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, 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  * * *