CAR_Public/140404.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 67

                             Headlines


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Underreports Payment Receipts of Workers
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
BBM CHOCOLATE: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Undeclared Milk
CACH LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Injunction on DNA Collection Law

CENTEX HOMES: Recalls Solar Saver Roof Panels
CLIF BAR.: Recalls LUNA(R) Bars Due to Package Mislabeling
CONSTRUCTION DIVERSIFIED: Faces Ariz. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DYNASPLINT SYSTEMS: Class Seeks Wages and Benefits for 60 Days
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info

EPL OIL: Being Sold to Energy XXI for Too Little, Suit Claims
EXCEL INDUSTRIES: Recalls 3,700 Hustler and BigDog Riding Mowers
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Italian Salad Due to Listeria Risk
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Alli Capsules Due to Tampered Labeling
HIGMAN BARGE: Failed to Pay Tankermen Overtime Wages, Suit Claims

HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of Fixing Prices of Air Flow Meters
HY-VEE: Faces Suit Over "Diabetic-Friendly" Claim
J.M. SMUCKER: Class May Amend Warranty Claims, Judge Rules
LENOVO INC: Recalls ThinkPad Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
LG ELECTRONICS: Used Old Software in Blu-Ray Players, Suit Says

MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Judge Refuses to Certify Dealership Class
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Sued for Suppressing Minor Leaguers' Wages
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Petropoulos" Securities Suit in Illinois
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Accused of Not Disclosing Overstated Revenue

NEW LIFE NUTRITIONAL: Recalls Fat Burner Capsules
NOVA PRODUCTS: Recalls Supplements Due to Undeclared Sildenafil
NUTRIOM LLC: 118,541 Lbs. of Egg Products Recalled
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Cheerleaders Not Subject to Minimum Wage Laws
ONE ON ONE: Negligently Contacted Class Members, Suit Claims

OSCARS SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Cheese Spreads Due to Listeria
PURE EDGE: Recalls BTrim Capsule Due to Undeclared Sibutramine
ROBERTS WAREHOUSING: FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Monetary Damages
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Benchmarking Apps in Galaxy
SATCO PRODUCTS: Recalls LED Light Bulbs Due to Injury Risk

TARGET CORP: Faces "Reynoso" Suit in Minnesota Over Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Removed "Shallow" Class Suit to S.D. California
TARGET CORP: Won't Face Class on Visa "Upgrade", 7th Cir Rules
TELEPERFORMANCE USA: Sued for Improper Termination Notice
UNITED STATES: Judge Denies Huge Incentives in "Cobell" Case

VERMONT COMMON: Recalls Zesty Lemon Cookie Buttons
WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
WAL-MART: Recalls 174,000 Cuddle Care Baby Doll


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Inc. Has Reserves for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Continues to Defend Talc Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Increased Net Fibro Reserves in 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Remains Liable for PC-related PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,080 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Payments of up to GBP123,000 Announced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Simpson Before Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Danger at Darwin Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Cases Push Docket to New Record

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Sign at Clements Causes Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust to Pocket Profits From Armstong Stock Sale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Illegally Dumped Around Clare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Forces Closure of RPAC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Wins Summary Judgment in R.I. Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Stopped at Ingram Site for Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Federal Judge Allows Testimony on Kent
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washing Clothes Gave Me Cancer, Woman Warns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Program Outlines Changes to Hotel's Use of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reilly-Benton Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Whistleblower's Suit Partially Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 NY Fibro Cases Consolidated for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Comardelle" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Dropped in Insurance Coverage Suit


                             *********


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: Underreports Payment Receipts of Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AIG et al. fraudulently
underreported receipts of payment for workers comp premiums, an
employer claims in a RICO class action.

Here are the parties to the RICO class action: D & J Plastics
Inc. v. American International Group Inc.; American Home
Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire and
Marine Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company;
Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance
Company; The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania;
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pa; New
Hampshire Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management Inc.; and [AIG
Chairman and CEO] Maurice R. Greenberg.


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam writing for Courthouse News Service reports
that an Allergan skin cream contains human growth factors derived
from human foreskin that could increase the risk of tumors, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Named plaintiff Josette Ruhnke sued Allergan and its subsidiary
SkinMedica for unfair competition, consumer law violations and
false advertising.  She claims the defendants misbranded and
unlawfully marketed a line of "cosmeceutical" skin care products
under the name Tissue Nutrient System (TNS), by failing to
disclose safety concerns and failing to get government approval.

The term "cosmeceutical" conveys that the products -- including
items such as eye repair, moisturizer and body lotion -- are both
cosmetic and pharmaceutical, the complaint states.

The TNS products, which are pushed for skin rejuvenation, contain
a proprietary mix of human growth factors "derived from human
foreskin tissue," according to the complaint.

Human growth factors are intended to mobilize, stimulate,
decrease, or otherwise alter the production of cells.
"Importantly, they had the ability to initiate cell division
(cell division)," the complaint states.

"The human growth factors contained in TNS products pose
significant health risks, including but not limited to the risk
of cancer.  Indeed, growth factors are believed to contribute to
the growth of tumor cells or other abnormalities," Ruhnke says in
the complaint.

SkinMedica does not adequately disclose these safety concerns,
but "describes growth factors in the Product Guide as proteins
that 'regulate cellular growth and the activity of skin cells.'
SkinMedica further describes TNS, a Tissue Nutrient Solution, as
'a combination of growth factors and other naturally occurring
elements that are crucial to the regeneration of healthy skin,'"
the complaint states.

SkinMedica also fails to disclose that the products cannot
legally be sold in California and the United States, the
complaint states.

Neither the FDA nor the California Department of Public Health
has determined that the products are safe or approved them for
sale, Ruhnke says.  She claims that TNS products are drugs under
federal and state law because they use human growth factors to
affect the structure and function of the skin through cell
division, multiplication and regeneration of skin tissue.

"SkinMedica wrongly pronounces that TNS products do not require
FDA approval.  Because TNS products are drug products being sold
without FDA approval, and because SkinMedica does not provide
mandatory and important product labeling information (as required
by the FDA and California DPH for such products), they are
misbranded."

Ruhnke seeks punitive damages and wants the defendants enjoined
from selling the products without full disclosure of safety
concerns and without government approvals.  She is represented by
Lee M. Gordon.

Allergan acquired SkinMedica in December 2012, according to the
complaint, which does not explain how they acquire human foreskin
tissue.


BBM CHOCOLATE: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBM Chocolate Distributors, Ltd. of Brooklyn, NY is recalling
"all lots" of CHOCOLAT Alprose 52% CACAO PREMIUM DARK CHOCOLATE,
Alprose Swiss Chocolate Dark Chocolate and CHOCOLATE Alprose
Napolitains because it may contain undeclared milk. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The three chocolate products were distributed nationwide to
retail stores from January 2013 through March 2014.

The chocolate product is packed in the following three ways:

CHOCOLAT ALPROSE 52% CACAO PREMIUM DARK CHOCOLATE, within stand-
up maroon colored gift box. NET WT 3.5 oz (100g). The UPC is
689423025038.

Alprose Swiss Chocolate Dark Chocolate within a gold colored
pillow gift box. NET WT 3.5 oz (100g). The UPC is 689423027308.

CHOCOLAT Alprose NAPOLITAINS SWITZERLAND, bulk product within
clear plastic bags of 230 pieces. NET WT. 1 Kg (35 oz). The UPC
is 712963000354.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency discovered that this dark chocolate product contained
milk, was distributed in packaging that did not list the presence
of milk.

This does not affect the product's "KOSHER PAREVE" status.

Sale and distribution of these products have been halted, until
FDA and our company is certain that the packaging of this product
is corrected to list the right allergy information.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at (718) 522-0689, Monday
through Thursday between the hours of 9:00am-5:00pm EST.


CACH LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Maranda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cach, LLC and Law Office of Joe Pezzuto, LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00071-ML-PAS (D.R.I., February 7, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

Defendant Cach, LLC is represented by:

          Joshua M.D. Segal, Esq.
          LAWSON & WEITZAN, LLP
          88 Black Falcon Avenue, Suite 345
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-4990
          Facsimile: (617) 439-3987
          E-mail: jsegal@lawson-weitzen.com

               - and -

          K. Scott Griggs, Esq.
          LAWSON & WEITZEN, LLP
          88 Black Falcon Avenue, Suite 345
          Boston, MA 02210-1736
          Telephone: (617) 439-4990
          Facsimile: (617) 439-3987
          E-mail: sgriggs@lawson-weitzen.com

Defendant Law Office of Joe Pezzuto, LLC is represented by:

          Nicole M. Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER, STILP LTD.
          166 West Washington Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 334-3442
          Facsimile: (312) 334-3434
          E-mail: strickler@messerstilp.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Injunction on DNA Collection Law
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull writing for Courthouse News Service reports that
California's voter-approved DNA collection law likely passes
constitutional scrutiny, the 9th Circuit ruled, looking at the
case en banc for the second time.

The law allows police to collect a DNA sample from any adult
arrested for or charged with a felony, and to keep the sample in
a database indefinitely.

Elizabeth Haskell, who was arrested in 2009 at a peace rally for
allegedly obstructing law enforcement, hoped to represent a class
in a constitutional challenge.  Despite Haskell's help from the
ACLU of Northern California, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
in San Francisco refused to enjoin the law.

After a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit initially affirmed
the ruling, the court reheard the case en banc in 2012.  Before
the 11-judge panel could issue a verdict, however, the Supreme
Court, in Maryland v. King, upheld a similar law in Maryland,
prompting the 9th Circuit to schedule another en banc hearing.
The court finally affirmed denial of the injunction in a terse,
unsigned ruling published.

"Plaintiffs' facial and as-applied challenges turn on essentially
the same question: Is California's DNA collection scheme
constitutional as applied to anyone 'arrested for, or charged
with, a felony offense by California state or local officials?'"
the ruling states. "Plaintiffs' counsel conceded as much at oral
argument.  Given that concession, plaintiffs cannot show that the
district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary
injunction that would apply to the entire class."

Suggesting that the plaintiffs have options going forward, the
panel said they could possibly seek an injunction for a smaller
class -- one "consisting of individuals arrested for certain
felonies that are not, in plaintiffs' view, covered by Maryland
v. King."

During oral arguments in December, ACLU attorney Michael Risher
argued that the "fundamental distinction" between the California
and Maryland laws was that "California is taking DNA from people
who are never charged with a crime or who are discharged for want
of probable cause."

"I believe that under King, DNA should only be taken from those
people who are actually charged with an offense," Risher said.

A class composed only of plaintiffs who had their DNA collected
even though they were not charged with an offense would likely be
smaller than the current class, which includes "[a]ll persons who
are, or will be, compelled to submit to the search and seizure of
their body tissue and DNA under California Penal Code
296(a)(2)(C) solely by reason of the fact that they have been
arrested for, or charged with, a felony offense by California
state or local officials."

But Judge Milan Smith, writing in a concurrence, argued that
there was really nothing the plaintiffs could do at this point to
overcome King.

"The Supreme Court's decision in King is fatal to plaintiffs'
claims," Smith wrote, explaining that the high court's ruling had
essentially made DNA collection "a legitimate police booking
procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment" --
similar to "fingerprinting and photographing."

"Despite the clarity of the Supreme Court's holding, plaintiffs
argue that King does not apply to California's DNA collection
law," he wrote. "But the purported distinctions that plaintiffs
identify are illusory."

"This case is over," Smith added, "and the District Court has no
obligation to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their
complaint."

Risher disagreed.

"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v.
King, the 9th Circuit said the District Court should be the first
court to review whether California's DNA collection at arrest law
is unconstitutional," the ACLU attorney said in an email. "The
ACLU lawsuit will continue, and we are determining what those
steps will be."


CENTEX HOMES: Recalls Solar Saver Roof Panels
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Centex Homes, of Rialto, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 240 homes Solar Save(R) roof panels. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Two incidents in which roof fires originated in or near the
recalled roof panels have been reported. These incidents involve
homes sold by Centex. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Open Energy 34 watt (OE-34) Solar Panel
energy systems sold under the brand name Open Energy SolarSave
Roofing Tiles. SolarSave panels replace conventional roof tiles
and provide solar power to the building. This recall involves all
brown, terracotta and gray OE-34 SolarSave roof tiles installed
on new homes sold by Centex Homes ("Centex"). This recall does
not include any other solar panels, except for the OE-34 model,
installed on homes sold by Centex.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/ITAfYW

The recalled products were manufactured by Open Energy
Corporation, Inc. and Applied Solar, Inc., of Solana Beach,
Calif., which this business is no longer operating.

Centex has contacted directly customers impacted by the recall
and performed free installations of new solar panels. Owners of
homes with qualifying solar energy systems who have not been
contacted by the company should turn off their solar energy
systems immediately and contact Centex to schedule the
installation of free replacement panels.


CLIF BAR.: Recalls LUNA(R) Bars Due to Package Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------------
Clif Bar & Company initiated a voluntary recall of a small amount
of 15-count boxes of Chocolate Chunk LUNA(R) Bars that were
shipped to limited stores nationwide. These 15-count boxes
include Chocolate Chunk LUNA(R) Bars made with macadamia nut
butter, but the wrappers do not include macadamia nuts in the
ingredient list or allergen statement. The wrappers do contain
advisory allergen labeling, which states that the product may
contain traces of other tree nuts. Clif Bar & Company is taking
this precautionary safety step for people who are allergic to
macadamia nuts. People with an allergy to macadamia nuts run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction.

The recalled applies to Chocolate Chunk LUNA Bar 15-count boxes
or individual bars meeting the following criteria:

Bar UPC: 7-22252-10068-9
15-Count Box UPC: 7-22252-20068-6
'Best By' Dates:
11NOV14
14OCT14

No other LUNA Bar products, pack sizes, flavors or 'Best By' date
codes are affected.

The company is strongly advising consumers who have macadamia nut
allergies not to consume these mislabeled bars. No allergic
reactions have been reported to date.

For more information or to request replacement coupons, please
visit www.lunabar.com/lunachocchunk or contact 1-888-851-8456, 8
a.m. - 5 p.m. PDT, Monday-Friday.

Clif Bar & Company cares deeply about the health and safety of
consumers. We apologize for this inadvertent labeling error.


CONSTRUCTION DIVERSIFIED: Faces Ariz. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Matei, a single man; Steve Ortiz, a single man v.
Construction Diversified, LTD., an Arizona Corporation; Douglas
and Joan Barr, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-00230-HRH (D.
Ariz., February 7, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages and an
award of treble damages, including interest, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Arizona Revised
Statutes and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Construction Diversified, Ltd. is incorporated in Arizona and
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.  Douglas and Joan Barr are
the owners of Construction Diversified.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Dawn M. Sauer, Esq.
          John L. Collins, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 258-8900
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  dawns@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


DYNASPLINT SYSTEMS: Class Seeks Wages and Benefits for 60 Days
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Lynn Ridge and Karissa Albrecht, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Dynasplint Systems, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-00378-GLR (D. Md., February 7, 2014) is a civil
action for collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60
calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant until they were
terminated as part of, or as a result of mass layoffs and plant
closings ordered by the Defendant.

Dynasplint Systems, Inc., was a Maryland corporation, which
maintained corporate headquarters in Severna Park, Maryland, and
other facilities including at Clifton, New Jersey; Stevensville,
Maryland; Medina, Ohio; and Kenner, Louisiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Starr, Esq.
          ABATO, RUBENSTEIN AND ABATO, P.A.
          809 Gleneagles Court, Suite 320
          Baltimore, MD 21286
          Telephone: (410) 321-0990
          Facsimile: (410) 321-1419
          E-mail: pstarr@abato.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          David C. Tufts, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com
                  dtufts@thegardnerfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel P. Moylan, Esq.
          Robert T. Shaffer, III, Esq.
          William J. Murphy, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
          Telephone: (410) 783-7000
          Facsimile: (410) 783-8823
          E-mail: dmoylan@zuckerman.com
                  rshaffer@zuckerman.com
                  wmurphy@zuckerman.com


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a Missouri corporation,
and Lyft Inc. d/b/a Zimride, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:14-cv-00596-SBA (N.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) is brought to put
an end to Zimride's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing its
users' personal information, and to obtain redress for that
conduct.

Enterprise Holdings is an American holding company that owns
Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, and Alamo Rent a Car,
among others.  In 2013, Enterprise Holdings acquired Zimride,
Inc. (now known as Lyft, Inc.).  Zimride is a company that
provides online ridesharing and carpooling services.  Users log
in to Zimride through their Facebook account (i.e., they must
enter a Facebook username and password) and can input details
about an upcoming trip to solicit fellow passengers, or purchase
a seat in a ride previously submitted by another Zimride user.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4100
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4251
          E-mail: meisen@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          Jack Yamin, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, Il 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  jyamin@edelson.com
                  cgivens@edelson.com

Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc., is represented by:

          J. Daniel Sharp, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-2800
          Facsimile: (415) 986-2827
          E-mail: dsharp@crowell.com

Defendant Lyft Inc., doing business as Zimride, is represented
by:

          Jennifer Ann Huber, Esq.
          Michelle Sabrina Ybarra, Esq.
          Rachael Elizabeth Meny, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: jhuber@kvn.com
                  mybarra@kvn.com
                  rem@kvn.com


EPL OIL: Being Sold to Energy XXI for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling EPL
Oil & Gas to Energy XXI too cheaply through an unfair process in
a $1 billion deal that values EPL at $39 a share, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


EXCEL INDUSTRIES: Recalls 3,700 Hustler and BigDog Riding Mowers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Excel Industries, Inc., of Hesston, Kan., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,700 Hustler and BigDog riding mowers. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The seat switch can fail to detect that the rider has left the
seat, allowing the mower to continue to operate, posing a risk of
injury.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the BigDog and Hustler brand riding mowers.
The BigDog mower is red with a grey seat and a black roll bar.
The words BigDog Diablo are printed below the front of the seat
and on the sides of the mower. The Hustler mowers are yellow with
grey seats. The Hustler mowers have "Hustler" on the front of the
footrest and say FastTrak, FastTrakSD or RaptorSD in red on the
yellow bar below the front of the seat. The FastTrak and
FastTrakSD mowers have a black roll bar. All mowers have right
and left steering handles. The recalled mowers have serial
numbers between 13082168 and 14012774 for the BigDog R Diablo,
between 13081106 and 14013675 for FastTrak, between 13081129 and
14013689 for FasTrakSD and between 13081376 and 14013882 for
Hustler RaptorSD. The serial number appears on a tag located on
the left side of the seat platform in front of the fender.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/X8Y5Kq

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at BigDog and Hustler dealers nationwide from August 2013 to
January 2014 for about $4,600 to $8,050.

Consumers should stop using the mower immediately and contact
your dealer to schedule an appointment to receive a free seat
repair.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Italian Salad Due to Listeria Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated has issued a recall of a limited
number of cases of 10 oz. and 6oz. Italian Salad with the already
expired Use-by Date of March 26 and a Product Code of H071A11A
due to a possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes. No
illnesses have been reported in association with the recall and
no other Fresh Express products are being recalled.

The company is confirming with retailers that the expired product
has already been removed from store shelves and inventories in
accordance with its strict procedures for products that have
reached their expiration date.

Only Fresh Express Italian Salad with the specific Product Code
of H071A11A and March 26 Use-by Date is included in the recall.
Consumers who have the recalled product should not eat it but
rather discard it. Consumers with questions may call Fresh
Express at (800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
EDT.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause foodborne
illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it.
Symptoms of infection may include fever, muscle aches,
gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea. The illness
primarily impacts pregnant women and adults with weakened immune
systems. Most healthy adults and children rarely become seriously
ill.

Although the product was already expired and no illnesses were
reported, the company elected to issue a recall as a precaution
when it learned a single sample in a random test had yielded a
positive result for Listeria monocytogenes. Fresh Express is
coordinating closely with regulatory officials.

The recalled salad was distributed in limited quantities to
predominantly Eastern and Mid-Atlantic states.

Fresh Express Italian Salad being recalled displays a Use-by Date
of March 26, 2014 with a Product Code of H071A11A in the upper
right-hand side of the package.

Fresh Express
Italian
10 oz.

Production Code: 0 71279-21100 8 H071A11A
Best If Used By Date: 26-Mar
Possible Distribution States: CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NY, NJ,
OH, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV, DC


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Alli Capsules Due to Tampered Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare is voluntarily
recalling all alli(R) weight loss products from U.S. and Puerto
Rico retailers as the company believes that some packages of the
product were tampered with and may contain product that is not
authentic alli(R). GSK is conducting an investigation and is
working with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) on this retailer level recall.

The recalled GSK received inquiries from consumers in seven
states about bottles of alli(R) that contained tablets and
capsules that were not alli(R). A range of tablets and capsules
of various shapes and colors were reported to be found inside
bottles. Additionally, some bottles inside the outer carton were
missing labels and had tamper-evident seals that were not
authentic. These tampered products were purchased in retail
stores.

"Safety is our first priority and we are asking retailers and
pharmacies to remove all alli from their shelves immediately,"
said Colin Mackenzie, President Consumer Healthcare North
America. "We have posted a Consumer Alert on our website,
www.myalli.com, and issued a News Release with information and
photographs to help consumers determine if their alli is
authentic."

alli(R) is a turquoise blue capsule with a dark blue band
imprinted with the text "60 Orlistat". It is packaged in a
labeled bottle that has an inner foil seal imprinted with the
words: "Sealed for Your Protection." Consumers should confirm any
alli(R) in their possession matches this description. Pictures of
the product are available on our website: www.myalli.com.

Consumers who have product they are unsure or concerned about
should not use it. Instead, they should call GSK promptly at 800-
671-2554, and a representative will provide further instructions.
If they have consumed questionable product, they should also
contact their healthcare providers.

"We are committed to finding out what happened and to doing
everything possible to prevent future issues with alli(R)," said
Mackenzie. "We regret any inconvenience caused by this retailer
recall."

Media contact: Deborah Bolding (deborah.g.bolding@gsk.com) (412-
327-5540)

alli(R) (60 mg orlistat capsules) is the only FDA approved over-
the-counter weight loss aid clinically proven to help boost
weight loss efforts.  alli(R) is for weight loss in overweight
adults, 18 years and older when used along with a reduced-calorie
and low fat diet.

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare is one of the world's largest
over-the-counter consumer healthcare products companies. Its
well-known brands include Nicorette(R) and NicoDerm(R) CQ, the
leading smoking cessationproducts; alli(R), the only FDA-OTC
weight loss aid; as well as medicine cabinet staples,
Aquafresh(R), Sensodyne(R), Tums(R), and Breathe Right(R), all of
which are trademarks owned by and/or licensed to GSK Group of
Companies.

GlaxoSmithKline -- one of the world's leading research-based
pharmaceutical and healthcare companies -- is committed to
improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do
more, feel better and live longer. For company information visit:
http://www.gsk.com.


HIGMAN BARGE: Failed to Pay Tankermen Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Tillery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Higman Barge Lines, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00040 (S.D. Tex., February 7, 2014) alleges that Higman failed to
pay its tankermen overtime compensation as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The collective action seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers.

Higman Barge Lines Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Texas.  Higman does business in
Texas and throughout the Gulf Coast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet Street
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
                  adunlap@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leslie Selig Byrd, Esq.
          BRACEWELL & GULIANI
          300 Convent Street, Ste 1500
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 226-1166
          Facsimile: (210) 226-1133
          E-mail: leslie.byrd@bgllp.com


HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Accused of Fixing Prices of Air Flow Meters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Hitachi Automotive Systems,
Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Denso
Corporation, and Denso International America, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-10588-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) is brought
as a proposed class action against the Defendants and unnamed co-
conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of Air Flow Meters for
engaging in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix,
artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for,
and allocate the market and customers in the United States for
Air Flow Meters.

"Air Flow Meters" measure the volume of air flowing into engines
and are part of the engine management systems and automotive
sensors segment of the automotive market.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'Neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Air Flow Meters
throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


HY-VEE: Faces Suit Over "Diabetic-Friendly" Claim
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hy-Vee misrepresents by
twentyfold the amount of sugar in its "Healthy 100% Whey" protein
drink sold as "diabetic-friendly," a class action claims in
Federal Court in Omaha.


J.M. SMUCKER: Class May Amend Warranty Claims, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class may amend warranty
claims in a complaint accusing J.M. Smucker of misrepresenting
Crisco cooking oils as all natural, a federal judge ruled.

The Plaintiff, Melissa Leigh Randolph is representing herself in
the lawsuit.

The case is Melissa Leigh Randolph vs. J.M. Smucker Co., case
number 13-80581-CIV in the Southern District of Florida.


LENOVO INC: Recalls ThinkPad Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lenovo Inc., of Morrisville, N.C., announced voluntary recall of
about 34,500 ThinkPad notebook computer battery packs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Lenovo has received two reports of the battery packs overheating,
resulting in damage to the computer, battery pack and nearby
property.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the following
ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13 and 14 series, the
T410, T420, T510 and W510 series, and the X100e, X120e, X200,
X201 and X201s series. The battery packs were also sold
separately. The black battery packs measure between 8 to 11
inches long, 1 to 3 inches wide and about 1 inch high. Recalled
battery packs have one of the following part numbers starting
with the fourth digit in a long series of numbers and letters
printed on a white sticker below the bar code on the battery
pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4798, 42T4804, 42T4812, 42T4822,
42T4828, 42T4834, 42T4840 and 42T4890.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/Ru9Rhp

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Computer and electronics stores, authorized dealers and online at
www.lenovo.com nationwide from October 2010 through April 2011
for between $350 and $3,000 when sold as part of ThinkPad
notebook computers. The battery packs were also sold separately
for between $80 and $150.

Consumers should immediately turn off their ThinkPad notebook
computer, remove the battery pack and contact Lenovo for a free
replacement battery pack.  Consumers can continue to use their
ThinkPad notebook without the battery pack by plugging in the AC
adapter and power cord.


LG ELECTRONICS: Used Old Software in Blu-Ray Players, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc.,
Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Cyberlink.com Corp., Cyberlink
Corp., and John Does 1 through 20, Case No. 3:14-cv-00083-wmc
(W.D. Wis., February 7, 2014) seeks relief for the Plaintiff and
similarly situated purchasers of the Defendants' popular LG Blu-
Ray Disc players, which were allegedly bundled with obsolete and
discontinued software preventing the BD players from playing Blu-
Ray Disc titles released after their purchase.

By bundling obsolete software with their BD Players, the
Defendants forced consumers to buy software upgrades, or to pay
money or search for alternative software, and to incur
installation hassle, computer damages, and other losses, in order
to make reasonable use of their purchase, Mr. Martin alleges.  He
insists that the obsolete software impaired the functionality of
the BD players, making the players less functional and valuable
than what consumers paid for, in violation of applicable law.

LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
LGUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of LG that operates at LG's
direction in importing, marketing, offering for sale and selling
products under the brand name "LG."  LGUS holds itself out as
"LG" to the public as if it is a single integrated entity with
its parent, LG.  LGUS purports to be one of the world's leading
manufacturers of consumer electronics.  LG Electronics, Inc.
("LG") is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of
business in Seoul, South Korea.  LG controls an integrated
enterprise comprised of itself and other entities including LGUS
and HLDS.  Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. ("HLDS") is a joint
venture between LG and Hitachi, Ltd. with its principal place of
business in Tokyo, Japan.

CyberLink Corp. is a Taiwanese company with its principal place
of business in New Taipei City 231, Taiwan.  CyberLink.com Corp.,
doing business as CyberLink USA, is a California corporation with
its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California, which
is also the principal U.S. location of its parent company,
CyberLink Corp.  CyberLink.com Corp. markets and sells BD player
software and serves BD player customers in the United States.

The Doe Defendants 1-20 are officers, employees, and agents of
the Defendants and other entities, who are or may be liable for
the wrongful conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Jablonski, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          354 West Main Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 258-8511
          Facsimile: (608) 442-9494
          E-mail: frankj@progressivelaw.com

               - and -

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          1 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2255
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717
          E-mail: ilan@progressivelaw.com


MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Magic Mountain and Walt
Disney Park and Resorts stiff workers for overtime, separate
class actions claim in Superior Court in Los Angeles.


MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Judge Refuses to Certify Dealership Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
certify a class of dealerships that say the Indian carmaker
Mahindra & Mahindra misled them about a networking deal, a
federal judge ruled.

The case is Automotive Leasing Corporation vs. Mahindra &
Mahindra, Ltd., case number 12-CV-2048-TWT in the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Sued for Suppressing Minor Leaguers' Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Senne, Michael Liberto, and Oliver Odle, Individually and
on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball, an unincorporated association doing
business as Major League Baseball; Allan Huber "Bud" Selig;
Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.; Miami Marlins, L.P.; and San
Francisco Baseball Associates LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS
(N.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) alleges that MLB has suppressed
minor leaguers' wages in violation of federal and state law.

The Plaintiffs contend that MLB's longstanding exemption from the
United States' antitrust laws allows it to openly collude on the
working conditions for the development of its chief commodity:
young baseball players.  They allege that most minor leaguers
earn between around $3,000 and $7,500 for the entire year despite
routinely working over 50 hours per week (and sometimes 70 hours
per week) during the roughly five-month championship season.
However, the Plaintiffs assert, minor leaguers receive no
overtime pay, and instead routinely receive less than minimum
wage during the championship season.

The collective Defendants are either members of or govern the
cartel known as Major League Baseball.  The organization traces
its roots to the nineteenth century.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
          Giuseppe S. Giardina, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
                  gbroshuis@koreintillery.com
                  ggiardina@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 7433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  tboardman@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  bpouya@pswlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura L. Reathaford, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: lreathaford@proskauer.com


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Petropoulos" Securities Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Petropoulos, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Merge Healthcare Incorporated, Michael W.
Ferro, Jr., Jeffery A. Surges, Steven M. Oreskovich and Justin C.
Dearborn, Case No. 1:14-cv-00869 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2014) is
a class action on behalf of purchasers of Merge common stock
between August 1, 2012, and January 7, 2014, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Merge is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.  Merge is a provider of clinical systems and
innovations.  Merge also provides clinical trials software and
other health data and analytics solutions that engage consumers
in their personal health.  The Individual Defendants are or were
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          FINKLESTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  mlk@classactionlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Howard Steven Suskin, Esq.
          Michael H. Margolis, Esq.
          Suzanne Jean Prysak, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          E-mail: hsuskin@jenner.com
                  mmargolis@jenner.com
                  sprysak@jenner.com


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Accused of Not Disclosing Overstated Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Howard C. Yang, Stephen Tai, Mark Voll, Yung Kuei Yu,
Cathy Yen, Jung-Kung Yang, Edward Way, Charles G. Sodini, and
Montage Technology Group Limited, Case No. 1:14-cv-00794-LLS
(S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2014) alleges that during the Class
Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that the Company overstated its revenue and
that Montage's largest distributor, LQW Technology Company
Limited, is a mere shell company that is secretly owned in full
by an undisclosed entity established by Montage and a Montage
employee.

Montage is a Cayman Islands corporation, which through its
operating subsidiaries, conducts its business primarily in China.
Montage purportedly engages in the design, development and
marketing of various analog and mixed-signal semiconductor
solutions for the home entertainment and cloud computing markets.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Kevin Chan, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  kchan@rosenlegal.com


NEW LIFE NUTRITIONAL: Recalls Fat Burner Capsules
-------------------------------------------------
New Life Nutritional Center is recalling all lots of "Super Fat
Burner capsules, Maxi Gold capsules and Esmeralda softgels" to
the user level after FDA analysis revealed the products contain
undeclared active pharmaceutical ingredients: sibutramine,
phenolphthalein or a combination of both sibutramine and
phenolphthalein.

Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from
the U.S. market in October 2010 (due to increased risk of
seizures, heart attacks, arrhythmia and strokes). Phenolphthalein
is an ingredient previously used in over-the-counter laxatives,
but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it is not currently
approved for marketing in the United States. These undeclared
ingredients make these products unapproved new drugs for which
safety and efficacy have not been established. At this time no
illnesses or injuries have been reported to New Life Nutritional
Center in connection with these products.

The recalled products are used as weight loss aids and are
packaged in 30 capsule bottles. All lots of these products are
being recalled. New Life Nutritional Center distributed these
products to customers residing in NY, NJ, LA, TX, VA, and MA via
retail stores and internet sales through their website at
www.newlifenutritional.com

New Life Nutritional Center is notifying its customers by letter.
Customers are advised to immediately discontinue use of these
products and should return the products immediately to New Life
Nutritional Center 714 West 181st Street NY, NY 10033 for a
refund.

Consumers with questions should contact Nilson Rosado at 646-209-
9846 Monday -- Friday 8am to 6 pm ET or via e-mail at
rosadohow@aol.com

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular mail or fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


NOVA PRODUCTS: Recalls Supplements Due to Undeclared Sildenafil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nova Products, Inc. of Aston, Pennsylvania is voluntarily
recalling the following products: African Black Ant (Lot# 2006-
000926), Black Ant (Lot# 2006-3627878), XZen Gold (Lot#
130310GL), ZXen Platinum (Lot# 130520PL), XZen 1200 (Lot#
13051012), XZone Gold (Lot# 131110GL), and XZone 1200 (Lot#
13071012) at the retail level. Lot numbers are identified on the
back or side of each product. FDA laboratory analysis on these
products has determined that they contain undeclared amounts of
sildenafil and tadalafil, active ingredients of FDA-approved
drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction.

These undeclared active ingredients pose a threat to consumers
because they can interact with nitrates found in some
prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin), resulting in
decreased blood pressure. Prescription drugs containing nitrates
are frequently prescribed for individuals with diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease. Additionally,
these products may cause side effects such as headaches and
flushing.

The recalled products are marketed as dietary supplements for
sexual enhancement and packaged in blister packs, envelopes,
bottles, and/or boxes distributed to consumers nationwide at
retail stores. Nova Products, Inc. has discontinued distribution
and sales of these products.

Nova Products, Inc. is notifying its distributors by mail of this
voluntary recall. Consumers that possess these products should
stop using them immediately and can return the products to Nova
Products, Inc., 5 Mount Pleasant Road, Aston, Pennsylvania.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Nova
Products, Inc. by telephone at 610-459-7709 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. EST. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking or using these products. Consumers can
report adverse reactions or quality control problems to the FDA's
MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online, by regular mail,
or by fax as follows:

Complete and submit reporting form online at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htmor Mail or fax reporting
form. Download form at http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm
or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form. Complete and
return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax
to 1-800-FDA-1078.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


NUTRIOM LLC: 118,541 Lbs. of Egg Products Recalled
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is issuing a public health alert because Nutriom
LLC, a Lacey, Wash. establishment, declined to expand its Feb.
15, 2014 recall to include an additional 118,541 pounds of
processed egg products for which there is reason to conclude that
they are unfit for human consumption.

The request for expansion was based on evidence collected during
an ongoing investigation conducted by FSIS at this establishment.
The company has refused to recall the additional processed egg
products. As a consequence, FSIS intends to take appropriate
action to remove the products from commerce.

FSIS issued the original recall because the company allegedly
recorded false laboratory results. The company allegedly produced
negative laboratory results for Salmonella when the results were
actually positive, or reported that sampling had occurred when,
in fact, no microbial testing was performed. FSIS requested the
company to include additional products, but it declined. Because
the product was not produced in accordance with FSIS
requirements, it is unfit for human consumption.

The following products were shipped to co-packers for
incorporation into consumer-size packages:

     3,884-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "H0613-B" 1,031-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole
Egg" with the lot code "I0413-A" 958-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy
Plain Whole Egg" with the lot code "I0413-A"

      4,422-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the
lot code "L1713-A"

The following products were packaged in consumer-sized packages:

     1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
dates "0374," "0384," "2683" and "2693"

     66-gram spray bottles of "Bak-Klene Egg Wash" with the lot
code "L1013A"

     1.17-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGRA, Reduced Cholesterol" with
the Julian dates "3129," "3228," "3229," "3230," "3231," "3281,"
"3282," "3283," "3284," "3337," "3338," "3339" and "3340"
4.5-oz. cans of "OvaEasy Whole Plain Egg" with the Julian date
"2883"

     571-gram packs of "Vitovo Low Fat" with the Julian date
"3193"

     1.1-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag UGR, Heat & Serve (HS)"
with the Julian dates "3161," "3162," "3182," "3183," "3188,"
"3201," "3202," "3203," "3204," "3205," "3208," "3209," "3210,"
"3211," "3212," "3213," "3220," "3221" and "3222"

     2-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian
dates "0074," "0084," "0094," "0354," "0364," "0374," "2243,"
"2253," "2953," "2963," "3463," "3473" and "3483"

     66-gram spray bottles of "Panera Egg Wash" with the Julian
dates "0104," "0154," "0164," "0174," "0214," "0224," "0234,"
"0244," "0284," "0294," "0304" and "0314"

     2-oz. pack of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian
date "0943"

On Feb. 15, 2014, the company recalled 226,710 pounds of
processed egg products.

The dried egg products were produced from May 2013 through
January 2014, and bear the establishment number "INSPECTED EGG
PRODUCTS PLANT 21493G" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. These
products were shipped nationwide and to U.S. military
installations in the United States and abroad, and to Mexico.

FSIS inspects egg products under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
FDA typically takes jurisdiction of egg products after they leave
the egg facility if they are incorporated into FDA-regulated
products. In this case, USDA handled the original recall rather
than FDA because the products are in consumer packages with an
identifiable USDA Mark of Inspection, and FSIS had jurisdiction
over the product when the contamination occurred. FSIS and FDA
are continuing to work together to ensure food safety, and the
management of Recall 015-2014 is such an example.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare and consume egg
products that have been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.
The only way to confirm that egg products are cooked to a
temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer that measures internal temperature,
http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov
or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Cheerleaders Not Subject to Minimum Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that dealing a blow to a civil lawsuit by two cheerleaders, the
U.S. Department of Labor said March 19, 2014, that Raiderettes in
Oakland are "seasonal" employees not subject to federal minimum
wage laws.

The federal agency launched an investigation into the Oakland
Raiders after one its cheerleaders, identified only as Lacy T.,
filed a class action this year in Alameda County Superior Court.
Sarah G. later joined as a plaintiff in an amended complaint.
They claim that the Raiders pay their cheerleaders less than $5
an hour, fine them for minor infractions, dock them pay for
gaining weight, saddle them with unrecompensed expenses and do
not pay them anything until the season is over.

With the Raiders filing to arbitrate those claims, a spokesman
for the Department of Labor's San Francisco office told the San
Francisco Chronicle that the Raiders qualified for an exemption
from federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

The exemption covers "seasonal amusement or recreational
establishments," which includes "any such establishment that
operates for no more than seven months a year," the article said.
"NFL teams play their first preseason game in August and their
last regular-season game in December."

Sharon Vinick, an attorney for Raiderettes with Levy Vinick
Burrell Hyams, said in an interview that the agency
miscalculated.

"Our clients aren't working only seven months," Vinick said.
"They work from April, when they have tryouts, to January, when
they are issued their paycheck; or minimally, from the first
practice in May to December with the last game.  Clearly, that's
more than seven months."

In seeking to compel arbitration with the NFL Commissioner, the
defendants noted that Lacy T. and Sarah G. both "signed written
employment agreements stating that 'all disputes' they have with
the Oakland Raiders shall be subject to binding arbitration
through the National Football League."

"Plaintiffs' arbitration agreements contain no provision for the
arbitration of class or representative claims," the motion
continues.

The Raiderettes hope to keep the action in court.

"Under NFL rules, the Commissioner is entitled to a copy of every
signed contract of every employee of every NFL team," Vinick
said. "He's had copies of these [Raiderette] contracts for years
and has never raised an issue. Clearly he's not a nonbiased
party."

The Raiders say that the court has already decided that the
arbitration agreements are not unconscionable and that the
commissioner is not "automatically biased."

In a prior case against the Raiders, "this court . . .
specifically rejected the argument that the arbitration agreement
was substantively unconscionable because it designated the NFL
Commissioner as arbitrator," the team's motion stated.  "The
court rejected the claim that the Commissioner was automatically
biased, and noted that both state and federal law permit the
Court to enforce arbitration and substitute the arbitrator in the
event there was any showing of bias, and that the NFL Guidelines
also permitted the parties to propose 'alternative methods of
proceedings.'"

In her original lawsuit, Lacy T. said that "Raiderettes are
required to attend all of the Raiders' preseason, regular season
and postseason home football games.  They are also required to
attend and participate in all practices, rehearsals, fittings,
preparations, drills, photo sessions, meetings and workouts, as
determined and directed by the Raiders."

Raiderettes also have to attend other special events to represent
the Raiders, without pay, the complaint states.

For this, Raiderettes allegedly earn a flat rate of $125 per
game, or $1,250 per season.

The Raiders fine cheerleaders for wearing the wrong workout
clothes to rehearsals, failing to bring a yoga mat to practice,
losing pom-poms or not turning in biographies on time, the
lawsuit states.  If a Raiderette gains 5 pounds or looks "too
soft," she could allegedly be benched and not allowed to perform.

The Oakland Raiders are represented by Kenneth Hausman of Arnold
& Porter LLP.


ONE ON ONE: Negligently Contacted Class Members, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. One on One Marketing, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-00960-
MWF-MAN (C.D. Cal., February 7, 2014) seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly,
and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

One on One Marketing, LLC, is a "person" as defined by the
Communications Act.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
          8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


OSCARS SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Cheese Spreads Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
Oscars Smokehouse Inc. of Warrensburg, New York is recalling
eleven (11) of its 7-oz. "CHEESE SPREADS" varieties marked with
3 digit lot numbers ranging from" 719-959" because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes:

JALAPENO PEPPER CHEDDAR SPREAD          NET WT 7 OZS.
CHEDDAR SPREAD & BLUE CHEESE            NET WT 7 OZS.
CHAMPAGNE CHEDDAR SPREAD                NET WT 7 OZS.
GARLIC CHEDDAR SPREAD                   NET WT 7 OZS.
PORT WINE CHEDDAR SPREAD                NET WT 7 OZS.
TANGY HORSERADISH CHEDDAR SPREAD        NET WT 7 OZS.
PLAIN CHEDDAR SPREAD                    NET WT 7 OZS.
"MORE THAN" CHEDDAR SPREAD              NET WT 7 OZS.
HICKORY SMOKED CHEDDAR SPREAD           NET WT 7 OZS.
BACON & HORSERADISH CHEDDAR SPREAD      NET WT 7 OZS.
BACON CHEDDAR SPREAD                    NET WT 7 OZS.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled products were distributed nationwide through mail
order sales, wholesale sales and one retail store between
3/21/2013 to 3/21/2014.

The product comes in a 7 oz., clear plastic container marked with
lot numbers 719-959 on the bottom of the container or on the
cheese spread label itself.

NO ILLNESSES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
PROBLEM.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (MDA) revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in 15 products, which included
the 5.5lb.package of CHEESE SPREAD BASE produced by PARKERS FARM
ACQUISITION, LLC that was used to further manufacture the above
mentioned Oscar's Smokehouse Cheese Spreads. The production of
this product has been suspended while the FDA and PARKER FARM
continue to investigate the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased any of the 7-oz. "CHEESE SPREAD"
products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Customers with any questions may contact Oscar's
Smokehouse, Inc. at 1-800-627-3431, Monday-Sunday 8am-6pm, EST.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


PURE EDGE: Recalls BTrim Capsule Due to Undeclared Sibutramine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toms River, NJ-based Pure Edge Nutrition, LLC is voluntarily
recalling one lot of each: Bella Vi Insane Bee Pollen Capsules,
Bella Vi BTrim Ultimate Boost, Bella Vi BTrim Max, Bella Vi
Extreme Accelerator, Bella Vi Insane Amp'd, and two lots of Bella
Vi Amp'd Up to the consumer level. The products have been found
to contain undeclared Sibutramine or a combination of both
Sibutramine and Phenolphthalein through FDA laboratory analyses.
Sibutramine a previously approved controlled substance, was
removed from the US market in October 2010 for safety reasons,
Phenophthalein is used medicinally as a laxative and not approved
for marketing in the US. Therefore, these products are unapproved
new drugs.

Products containing sibutramine and phenophthalein pose a threat
to consumers because Sibutramine can increase blood pressure
and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a risk for
those with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart
failure, arrhymias or stroke. These products may also interact in
life threatening ways with other medications a consumer may be
taking. To date, the company has not received any reports of
adverse events related to this recall. The recall was initiated
after discovering the Sibutramine and Phenophthalein were
included as ingredients by the manufacturer.

The recalled products are marketed as dietary supplements for
weight loss and were packaged and distributed as follows:

Bella Vi Insane Bee Pollen Capsules is packaged in bottles of 60
capsules with lot # 201303 EXP: 14/03/07. Bella Vi Insane was
distributed to consumers and distributors nationwide from March
1, 2013 -- August 31, 2013.

Bella Vi BTrim Max is packaged in bottles of 60 capsules with lot
# BTX13 EXP: 2015/08/15. Bella Vi Btrim Max was distributed to
consumers and distributors nationwide from August 31, 2013 --
September 31, 2013.

Bella Vi BTrim Ultimate Boost is packaged in bottles of 30
capsules with lot # BTRM3452 EXP: 2015/07/03. Bella Vi Btrim was
distributed to consumers and distributors nationwide from July 1,
2013 -- September 31, 2013.

Bella Vi Extreme Accelerator is packaged in bottles of 30
capsules with lot # BTRX7654 EXP: 2015/07/08. Bella Vi Extreme
was distributed to consumers and distributors nationwide from
July 1, 2013 -- September 31, 2013.

Bella Vi Insane Amp'd is packaged in bottles of 60 capsules with
lot # VINA2013 EXP: 2015/06/12. Bella Vi Insane Amp'd was
distributed to consumers and distributors nationwide from June 1,
2013 -- September 31, 2013.

Bella Vi Amp'd Up is packaged in bottles of 60 capsules with lot
# AU2013AB EXP: 2015/05/20 and lot #BVAU813 EXP: 2015/08/12.
Bella Vi Amp'd Up was distributed to consumers and distributors
nationwide from May 1, 2013 -- September 31, 2013.

Pure Edge Nutrition, LLC is notifying its distributors and
customers by email and is arranging for return of all recalled
products. Consumers and distributors that have product which is
being recalled should stop using and return products to Pure Edge
Nutrition, LLC.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Pure
Edge Nutrition, LLC at (888) 417-3613 Monday -- Friday 10:00 a.m.
-- 2:00 p.m. EST or email info@pureedgenutrition.com. Consumers
should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they
have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or
using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm  Regular Mail or Fax: Download
form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


ROBERTS WAREHOUSING: FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Monetary Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Howser, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Roberts Warehousing, Inc., Jody Roberts,
Kari J. Moore, and William N. Roberts, Case No. 1:14-cv-00036-SPB
(W.D. Pa., February 7, 2014) is brought as a collective action on
behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Roberts Warehouse, Inc., is a Pennsylvania domestic for-profit
corporation headquartered in North East, Pennsylvania.  According
to its Web site, the Company currently has "four (4) facilities
totaling 500,000 sq. ft. of space all in Erie County" and houses
"a variety of dry goods for a number of companies."  The
Individual Defendants are officers or shareholders of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Benchmarking Apps in Galaxy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Norcia, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a
New York Corporation, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a
New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00582-WHA (N.D. Cal.,
February 7, 2014) alleges that Samsung intentionally cheated on
benchmarking apps to create a false perception regarding the
speed and performance of the Galaxy S4, to thereby increase the
demand for its new devices, and to support a high price-point for
these devices -- all to the detriment of the buying public.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, is a New York limited
liability corporation based in Richardson, Texas.  Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation based in
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.  The Defendants distributed and sold
consumer electronic devices, including the Galaxy S4 smartphone,
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo G. Roy, Esq.
          Daniel C. Quintero, Esq.
          JOHN R. HURLEY, Esq.
          PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
          220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 527-0255
          E-mail: eduardo.roy@prometheus-law.com
                  daniel.quintero@prometheus-law.com
                  john.hurley@prometheus-law.com


SATCO PRODUCTS: Recalls LED Light Bulbs Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SATCO Products Inc., of Brentwood, NY., announced voluntary
recall of about 119,000 KolourOne Brand Panel Array 2.0 and DUO
2.0 PAR LED Light Bulbs. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal housing/lens assembly can separate from the bulb's base
and fall. This poses a risk of injury from impact to bystanders.

The firm has received four reports of the bulb components
separating. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves SATCO KolourOne brand Panel Array 2.0 and
DUO 2.0 PAR 30 and 38 LED light bulbs. The 13-, 14- and 17-watt
white bulbs were sold in longneck and shortneck models and have
the KolourOne logo printed on the neck of the bulb. Product
numbers beginning with S89XX or S90XX are printed below the logo.
Lot numbers are printed on the outer rim of the optical lens and
those with the letter "A" in the last character position are not
included in the recall.

     Models                   Product Numbers
     ------                   ---------------
Panel Array 2.0 14 W PAR30    S8934, S8935, S8936,
Shortneck E26 Base            S8941, S8942, S8943

Panel Array 2.0 14 W PAR30
Longneck E26                  S8947, S8948, S8949, S8971, S8972,

& Gu24 Bulb                   S8973, S9054

Panel Array 2.0 17 W PAR38    S8977, S8978, S8979,
E26 & Gu24 Base               S8984, S8985, S8986, S9060

Duo 2.0 13 W PAR30            S9017
Shortneck Bulb

Duo 2.0 13 W PAR30            S9020
Longneck Bulb

Duo 2.0 17 W PAR38 Bulb       S9023

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/p5PFQt

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Amazon.com from December 2012 to February 2014 for between $35
and $45.

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the recalled
light bulbs from any fixture. Consumers can contact SATCO
Products for free replacement bulbs.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Reynoso" Suit in Minnesota Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Reynoso, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Target Corporation and Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-00347-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., February 7, 2014)
arises from the data breach at Target stores last year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          David Woodward, Esq.
          James W. Anderson, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                  dwoodward@heinsmills.com
                  janderson@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Kennedy Square
          777 Woodward Avenue, Suite 890
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 309-1760
          Facsimile: (313) 447-2038
          E-mail: pnovak@milberg.com

               - and -

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          John Seredynski, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com
                  jseredynski@milberg.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOT LAW GROUP P.A.
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292-1111
          Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com


TARGET CORP: Removed "Shallow" Class Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Shallow v. Target Corporation, et
al., Case No. 37-2013-00074398-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for San Diego County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
00294-CAB-BGS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq.
          Kevin Frederick Quinn, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTLOTTA MCGUIRE
          2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: siminou@tbmlawyers.com
                  quinn@tbmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven D. Allison, Esq.
          Samrah Mahmoud, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 263-8400
          Facsimile: (949) 263-8414
          E-mail: SAllison@crowell.com
                  smahmoud@crowell.com

               - and -

          Emily Tomoko Kuwahara, Esq.
          CROWELL AND MORING LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5556
          Facsimile: (213) 622-2690
          E-mail: ekuwahara@crowell.com

               - and -

          Gregory Dwight Call, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-2800
          Facsimile: (415) 986-2827
          E-mail: gcall@crowell.com


TARGET CORP: Won't Face Class on Visa "Upgrade", 7th Cir Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that after converting customer cards to unsolicited, high-fee
Visas and slashing credit rates, Target need not face a federal
class action, the 7th Circuit ruled.

The dispute stems from Target's campaign to "upgrade" store-use-
only guest cards by sending unsolicited general-purpose Visas to
more than 10 million customers from 2000 to 2007.  The "Auto-
Substitution" program let Target deactivate holders' old cards,
which were governed by separate agreements than the new, all-
purpose Target Visas, which typically had higher credit limits
and lower annual percentage rates.  Various fliers and brochures
informed customers: "Your old Target Card will be closing soon,
so cut up your old Target Card, activate your new Target Visa and
start using it today!"

Though Target transferred guest card balances to Visas that were
activated, the autosub materials never stated that credit limits
were subject to change, according to the ruling.  Target also
reduced credit limits after activation, the court said, noting
that most customers had $1,000 credit limits in the 2005 rollout
but that many with credit scores under 649 had their limits
slashed later.  Plus, the card agreements gave Target substantial
leeway to modify or cancel accounts.  Target also had
telemarketers call over a million people who did not immediately
activate their new Visas, and closed accounts of customers who
never activated the new cards.

Two customers, Richard Acosta and Jenifer Roman, hoped to
represent a class claiming that Target violated the federal Truth
in Lending Act and state law by failing to show all the
differences between the old and new cards.

Acosta used a guest card from 1999 to 2005, when he activated an
unsolicited Visa.  The Visa that Roman activated in 2004,
meanwhile, had a higher credit limit and lower minimum payment
than the guest card.  Because Roman failed to timely pay her old
card's remaining balance, however, she was charged higher late
fees and given a worse interest rate.

These claims nevertheless failed to sway a federal judge, who
granted Target summary judgment after finding that the Autosub
program was a "substitution" of the guest card specifically
permitted by federal law.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed, on March 19,
2014, holding that the new Visa was "a valid substitution for the
guest card, both as the word is commonly understood and as the
Federal Reserve Board has interpreted the term for the purposes
of [Truth in Lending Act] TILA."

The court also upheld Target's claim that the Visas did not
create a new account, noting that the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act amended Section 1637 of the
Truth in Lending Act in 2009, requiring credit card mailings to
clarify new accounts.

"Target had no way of knowing during the early- and mid- 2000s
that the Autosubbed Visas would violate S 1637, and so Target
made the reasonable judgment that new account disclosures were
not required," Judge Joel Flaum wrote for the Chicago-based
panel.

In nixing the state-law claims, Flaum said it was not fraudulent
for Target to omit "the fact that cardholders could maintain
their guest cards by taking additional steps."

The court also disagreed that that Target's right to make changes
to "this agreement" referred to the old card contract, also
failed.

"There was nothing in the agreement that limited the scope of
changes that Target was free to make," Flaum wrote.  "And anytime
Target made changes to a credit agreement, it had to send out the
revisions to customers; when revisions were substantial, it often
made sense to send an entirely new document (as opposed to just
the revised portions)."

Last, the plaintiffs failed to show that Target caused customers
to lose their old cards unjustifiably in directing Target
National Bank to convert guest cards to Visas.

"Target acted in accordance with its contracts and with
applicable laws, which makes liability for tortious interference
impossible here," Flaum wrote.


TELEPERFORMANCE USA: Sued for Improper Termination Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
William Holley, Susan Fletcher, and Jordan Nichols, on behalf of
themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Former Employees of
Defendants v. Teleperformance USA, Inc. a/k/a TPUSA, Inc., Case
No. 5:14-cv-10595-JCO-MJH (E.D. Mich., February 7, 2014) alleges
that the Company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act by failing to give the Plaintiffs and its other
similarly situated employees at least 60 days' advance notice of
termination, as required by the WARN Act.

The members of the putative class were employed by the Defendant
at the Ann Arbor facility in various positions until they were
terminated in January 2014.

Teleperformance USA, In., also known as TPUSA, Inc., is a body
corporate organized and chartered under the laws of the state of
Delaware with a principal place of business in Utah and
registered to do business in the state of Michigan.  The Company
maintained facilities in Ann Arbor, Michigan and in Holladay,
Utah.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Philo, Esq.
          Tony Paris, Esq.
          MAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC
          & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                  johnphilo1@comcast.net
                  tparis@sugarlaw.org

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          J. Cecil Gardner, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181


UNITED STATES: Judge Denies Huge Incentives in "Cobell" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott writing for Courthouse News Service reports that the
lead plaintiffs in the $3.4 billion Indian trust Fund settlement
Cobell v. Salazar should not recoup $10 million in incentive
rewards, a federal judge ruled.

The class representatives in the landmark settlement petitioned
the court in 2011 for $10.5 million in incentive awards, expenses
and costs, including reimbursements for litigation-support
services that third-party organizations provided.  They moved to
consider after an initial denial but found them selves
unsuccessful again March 20, 2014.

"The entire premise of the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
is that the plaintiffs 'may not have been sufficiently clear that
[Elouise] Cobell and, in certain cases, the other named
plaintiffs are personally liable for much of' the expenses the
Class Representatives sought to recover in their incentive-award
petition," Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan explained.
"There are two flaws regarding this premise that doom the motion
for reconsideration.  First and foremost, the plaintiffs were not
simply 'unclear;' to the contrary, they never raised this
argument before the court issued its ruling, although they had
the opportunity to do so both during the briefing of the
incentive-award petition and during the presentation of oral
arguments at the fairness hearing.  For this reason alone the
court will deny the motion."

A member of the Blackfeet Tribe, Cobell made headlines in 1996
with her federal class action that accused the United States of
stealing money from trusts set up as part of the 1887 Dawes Act.
The law was supposed to set up trusts to pay royalties to Native
Americans for use of their lands, though little money exchanged
hands.

After a 13-year legal battle, the federal government agreed to
settle the claims with $3.4 billion, money representing the oil,
gas, mineral and other royalties from more than 50 million acres
of tribal lands.

Though they estimated that the tribes were actually owed $47
billion, Cobell and the other plaintiffs accepted the settlement
to help aging tribal members who had fought for the money for
more than a decade.

The settlement was challenged in 2010 by descendants of slaves
who were owned by the so-called Five Civilized Tribes.  They
called the settlement racially discriminatory, with the United
States paying off descendants of treasonous Indian slave owners
who took the South's side in the Civil War instead of paying the
descendants of the Indians' slaves.

Cobell died in 2011 at 65.

Since the settlement, attorneys and beneficiaries have been
disputing fees and awards.


VERMONT COMMON: Recalls Zesty Lemon Cookie Buttons
--------------------------------------------------
Vermont Common Foods of North Clarendon, VT operating under the
Orton Bros. Brand is recalling one lot of Zesty Lemon Cookie
Buttons because they may contain Peanut Butter Cookies. The
product label does not declare peanuts. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The recalled Zesty Lemon Cookie Buttons are distributed at
Hannaford Supermarkets in New England.

Zesty Lemon Cookie Buttons would have been purchased in the all-
natural section of Hannaford Supermarket. The recalled cookies
are in a 6 oz. yellow box, UPC code 20104 19100. The lot code and
expiration date are stamped on the bottom of the box; LOT14021M
with the expiration date of 10-21-14.

No illnesses or issues have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that a portion
of one lot of Peanut Butter Cookies was erroneously labeled as
Zesty Lemon Cookie Buttons. Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
packaging processes which has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled lot of Zesty Lemon
Cookie Buttons are urged to return the product to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-802-775-4111.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Waffle House illegally
uses consumer reports to deny employment, a class action claims
in Federal Court in Alexandria, Va.


WAL-MART: Recalls 174,000 Cuddle Care Baby Doll
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wal-Mart Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced voluntary recall
of about 174,000 Cuddle Care Baby Doll. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The circuit board in the chest of the doll can overheat, causing
the surface of the doll to get hot, posing a burn hazard to the
consumer.

Wal-Mart has received 12 reports of incidents, including two
reports of burns or blisters to the thumb.

The recall involves the Cuddle Care Baby Doll. The Baby
electronic baby doll comes in pink floral clothing and matching
knit hat. The 16 inch doll is packaged with a toy medical check-
up kit including a stethoscope, feeding spoon, thermometer and
syringe. The doll's electronics cause her to babble when she gets
"sick," her cheeks turn red and she starts coughing. Using the
medical kit pieces cause the symptoms to stop. "My Sweet Baby" is
printed on the front of the clear plastic and cardboard
packaging. The doll is identified by UPC 6-04576-16800-5 and a
date code which begins with WM. The date code is printed on the
stuffed article label sewn into the bottom of the doll.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/kdEffd

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart stores nationwide from August 2012 through March 2014 for
$20.

Consumers should immediately take the dolls from children, remove
the batteries and return the doll to any Walmart store for a full
refund.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Inc. Has Reserves for Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc., says its reserves for claims for exposure to
asbestos are adequate, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Our property and warranty line of business
includes exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general
liability claims arising from our participation in various
reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure arose
from a contract that we discontinued writing many years ago. We
carry case reserves, as recommended by the various pool managers,
and incurred but not reported ("IBNR") reserves totaling
$33,086,000 (before reinsurance) and $30,214,000 (net of
reinsurance) at December 31, 2013. We believe the balance of case
and IBNR reserves for these liabilities are adequate. However,
any estimation of these liabilities is subject to greater than
normal variation and uncertainty due to the general lack of
sufficiently detailed data, reporting delays and absence of a
generally accepted actuarial methodology for those exposures.
There are significant unresolved industry legal issues, including
such items as whether coverage exists and what constitutes a
claim. In addition, the determination of ultimate damages and the
final allocation of losses to financially responsible parties are
highly uncertain. However, based on information currently
available, and after consideration of the reserves reflected in
the consolidated financial statements, we do not believe that
changes in reserve estimates for these claims are likely to be
material."

Assurant, Inc. (Assurant) is a provider of specialized insurance
products and related services in North America and select
worldwide markets. The Company operates in four segments:
Assurant Solutions, Assurant Specialty Property, Assurant Health,
and Assurant Employee Benefits. The products offered by the
segments include warranties and service contracts, pre-funded
funeral insurance, lender-placed homeowners insurance,
manufactured housing homeowners insurance, individual health and
small employer group health insurance, group dental, disability,
and life insurance and employee-funded voluntary benefits. On
June 21, 2011, the Company acquired the SureDeposit business, the
provider of security deposit alternatives to the multifamily
housing industry. In October 2013, FirstService Corporation
completed the sale of its Field Asset Services business to
Assurant, Inc. In October 2013, Assurant Inc acquired Lifestyle
Services Group Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation continues to defend itself from asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve
exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly
owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never
manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain
asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas,
Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We
maintain an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a
receivable for expected insurance recoveries.

The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to
currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions
and factors:

* We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences
both the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity
cost associated with such resolutions.

* The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will
actually, after discovery, make a claim against us, out of the
total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level
consistent with past experience and current trends.

* We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the
basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims.
These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and
former employees who worked at past and present company
locations. We also include an estimated inflation factor in the
calculation.

* No estimate is made for unasserted claims.

* The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle
Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases
are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement
agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company.

Based on the assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted
liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million at
December 31, 2013 and $11 million December 31, 2012. The
liabilities related to asbestos claims are included in accrued
expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on
the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are
recoverable through our insurance coverage and an agreement with
Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries
related to premises asbestos liabilities was $6 million at
December 31, 2013 and $8 million at December 31, 2012. These
receivables are included in trade and other accounts receivable,
net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion.
The noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other
assets."

NewMarket Corporation (NewMarket) is a holding company, which is
the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), Ethyl
Corporation (Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation (NewMarket
Services), and NewMarket Development Corporation (NewMarket
Development). Each of the Company's subsidiaries manages its own
assets and liabilities. Afton encompasses the petroleum additives
business, while Ethyl represents the sale and distribution of
tetraethyl lead (TEL) in North America and certain petroleum
additives manufacturing operations. NewMarket Development manages
the property, which it owns in Richmond, Virginia. NewMarket
Services provides administrative services to NewMarket, Afton,
Ethyl, and NewMarket Development. NewMarket Services departmental
expenses and other expenses are billed to NewMarket and each
subsidiary pursuant to services agreements between the companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Continues to Defend Talc Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend itself against
cases alleging that certain of its talc products were
contaminated with asbestos, 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 a defendant in a number of civil actions alleging
that certain talc products it sold prior to 1996 were
contaminated with asbestos. Since 2008, the Company has and will
continue to challenge these cases vigorously, and although there
can be no assurances, it believes, based on the advice of its
legal counsel, that they are without merit and the Company should
ultimately prevail. Currently, there are 13 single plaintiff
cases pending against the Company in state courts in Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey and New York and one case pending in federal
court in North Carolina. Fourteen similar cases previously filed
against the Company have been dismissed and final judgment
entered in favor of the Company. To date, there have been no
findings of liability against the Company in any of these cases.
Since the amount of any potential losses from these cases at
trial cannot be estimated, the range of reasonably possible
losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed does not
include any amount relating to these cases.

In 2014, several of these cases are tentatively scheduled to go
to trial, although the Company may succeed in dismissing some or
all of them prior to trial. The Company believes that it will
ultimately prevail as it has in all similar cases.

Colgate-Palmolive Company (Colgate) is a consumer products
company whose products are marketed in over 200 countries and
territories throughout the world. It operates in two segments:
Oral, Personal and Home Care and Pet Nutrition. Oral Care
business products include Colgate Total, Colgate Sensitive Pro-
Relief, Colgate Max Fresh, Colgate Optic White and Colgate
Luminous White toothpastes, Colgate 360 manual toothbrushes and
Colgate and Colgate Plax mouth rinses. Colgate's Oral Care
business also includes dental floss and pharmaceutical products
for dentists and oral health professionals. Its Personal Care
products also include Palmolive, Softsoap and Sanex brand shower
gels, Palmolive, Irish Spring and Protex bar soaps and Speed
Stick, Lady Speed Stick and Sanex deodorants and antiperspirants.
It sells liquid hand soap under the Palmolive, Protex and
Softsoap brands. Colgate, through its Hill's Pet Nutrition
segment (Hill's), manufactures pet nutrition products for dogs
and cats.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Increased Net Fibro Reserves in 2013
---------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., increased its gross asbestos
loss reserves by $220 million and net asbestos loss reserves by
$110 million in 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We consider a number of factors and recent
experience, in addition to the results of both external and
internal analyses, to estimate asbestos and environmental loss
reserves. Nonetheless, we believe that significant uncertainty
remains as to our ultimate liability for asbestos and
environmental claims, which is due to several factors, including:

* the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease
manifestation, leading to the potential for involvement of
multiple policy periods for individual claims;

* claims filed under the non-aggregate premises or operations
section of general liability policies;

* the number of insureds seeking bankruptcy protection and the
effect of prepackaged bankruptcies;

* diverging legal interpretations; and

* the difficulty in estimating the allocation of remediation cost
among various parties with respect to environmental claims.

We engaged an independent third-party actuarial firm to assist in
assessing asbestos exposures. This external study was completed
in early 2011, based on losses evaluated in 2010.The ground-up
study conducted by this firm used a proprietary model to
calculate the loss exposure on an insured-by-insured basis. We
believe that the accuracy of the reserve estimate is greatly
enhanced through the combination of the actuarial firm's industry
modeling techniques and industry knowledge and our own specific
account-level experience.

In 2011, in addition to this third-party ground-up asbestos
study, we internally completed a top-down report year projections
as well as market share projections of our indicated asbestos and
environmental loss reserves. These projections consisted of a
series of tests performed separately for asbestos and for
environmental exposures.

For asbestos, these tests project the losses expected to be
reported through 2027. This projection was based on the actual
losses reported through 2011 and the expected future loss
emergence for these claims. Three scenarios were tested, with a
series of assumptions ranging from more optimistic to more
conservative. For environmental claims, a comparable series of
frequency/severity tests were produced. As a result of the
studies, we concluded that no additional strengthening was
required for asbestos and environmental in 2011.

In 2012, after we carefully considered the recent experience
compared to the results of the 2010 ground-up analysis, as well
as all of the factors related to uncertainty, no adjustment to
gross and net asbestos reserves was recognized in 2012.
Additionally in 2012, a moderate amount of incurred loss
pertaining to the asbestos loss reserve discount and is related
to the reserves not subject to the NICO reinsurance agreement.
Upon completion of a top-down analysis performed for
environmental in the fourth quarter of 2012, we concluded that
the $150 million gross reserve strengthening and $75 million net
reserve strengthening recognized in the first half of 2012 was
adequate.

In 2013, we completed a ground-up review of all our remaining
retained accounts for asbestos. In addition, a subsidiary of the
retrocessionaire for our retroactive reinsurance contract
completed a ground-up asbestos study for the largest accounts it
assumed. After carefully considering the results of both ground-
up studies, we increased gross asbestos loss reserves by $220
million and net asbestos loss reserves by $110 million. These
reserve increases also reflect a small amount of estimated
uncollectible reinsurance and accretion of discount. A
significant portion of the net loss reserve increase will be
recoverable under our retroactive reinsurance arrangement. For
environmental, we increased gross environmental reserves by $98
million and net environmental reserves by $61 million as a result
of top-down actuarial analyses performed during the year as well
as development on a number of large accounts.

In addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve
amounts, AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves
relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $134
million gross and $108 million net as of December 31, 2013
compared to $140 million gross and $116 million net as of
December 31, 2012."

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage
insurance and other financial services to customers in more than
130 countries. It diverse offerings include products and services
that help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage
risks and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues
primarily from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal
life insurance and investment products, and income from
investments. Its segments include AIG Property Casualty and AIG
Life and Retirement. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the
Chartis segment was renamed AIG Property Casualty and the
SunAmerica segment was renamed AIG Life and Retirement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Remains Liable for PC-related PI Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., continues to be liable for claims alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos against Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

For more than 30 years, the Company has been named defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.  Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products
manufactured by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC").  The
Company is a 50% shareholder of PC.

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended
PC plan of reorganization, as amended, until the Funding
Effective Date. On the Funding Effective Date, PPG will
relinquish any claim to its equity interest in PC, convey the
stock it owns in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and transfer 1,388,889
shares of PPG's common stock or cash equal to the fair value of
such shares as defined in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement.
PPG will make aggregate pretax cash payments to the Trust of
approximately $825 million, payable according to a fixed payment
schedule over a period ending in 2023. The first payment is due
on the Funding Effective Date. PPG would have the right, in its
sole discretion, to prepay these pretax cash payments to the
Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the
prepayment date. PPG's historical insurance carriers
participating in the third amended PC plan of reorganization will
also make cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7
billion between the Funding Effective Date and 2027. These
payments could also be prepaid to the Trust at any time at a
discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG
will grant asbestos releases and indemnifications to all
participating insurers, subject to amended coverage-in-place
arrangements with certain insurers for remaining coverage of
premises claims. PPG will grant certain participating insurers
full policy releases on primary policies and full product
liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will also
grant certain other participating excess insurers credit against
their product liability coverage limits.

PPG's obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at
December 31, 2008, was $162 million less than the amount that
would have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement.
This reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated
provisions in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the
provisions relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG
retains liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will
retain such amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that
will not be channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents
PPG's best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does
not have sufficient current claim information or settlement
history on which to base a better estimate of this liability, in
light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court's stay has been in
effect since 2000. As a result, PPG's reserve at December 31,
2013 and December 31, 2012 for asbestos-related claims that will
not be channeled to the Trust is $162 million. This amount is
included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets. In addition, under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement, PPG will retain for its own account
rights to recover proceeds from certain historical insurance
assets, including policies issued by non-participating insurers.
Rights to recover these proceeds would have been assigned to the
Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement.

Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy
Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with
asbestos claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to
the third amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its
estimated liability for such claims and related insurance assets
then available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions
on a periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its
reserve for these claims is required.

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and
decorative coatings. PPG operates in six business segments. The
Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural
Coatings-EMEA segments supply protective and decorative finishes
for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial
equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum
extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft
equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial
and consumer products. The Optical and Specialty Materials
segment consist of the optical products and silicas businesses.
It is a producer and supplier of basic chemicals. Glass segment
produces flat glass and continuous-strand fiber glass. The Glass
business segment consists of the flat glass and fiber glass
businesses. In January 2013, the combined company formed by
uniting Georgia Gulf with PPG's former commodity chemicals
business is named Axiall Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,080 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation had 1,080 pending cases involving allegations
of personal injury from exposure to asbestos, 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.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company was a party to 1,080 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,975 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries. For the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013, the Company recorded  total defense costs of $2,620,000,
excluding amounts reimbursed under the Company's primary
insurance.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite
or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to
alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not
specify the amount sought. Of the 7,975 claims pending at
December 31, 2013, 134 set forth specific amounts of damages
(other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the
discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately $6.6 million. All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise
be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company
believes it is likely that there will be a period within the next
one or two years, prior to the commencement of coverage under
this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary
insurance coverage, during which the Company likely will be
solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the
duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards
and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position and
results of operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace &
Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America. On September 13, 2011, the Company purchased all
of the assets of a standard ring type joint gasket manufacturer
located in Faridabad. On August 1, 2011, it acquired the stock of
Innovative Molding (Innovative). On January 14, 2013, the
Company's business, Lamons acquired Gasket Vedacoes Tecnicas Ltd.
On January 28, 2013, it acquired Martinic Engineering, Inc. In
August 2013, TriMas Corporation closed on a transaction to sell
the operating assets of its Rieke Italia business. In October
2013, the Company announced that it has acquired Mac Fasteners,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Payments of up to GBP123,000 Announced
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that victims of mesothelioma, an aggressive
cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, are to receive an average
of GBP123,000 compensation from a new fund.

Thousands of patients, or their families, will be able to apply
to the GBP380 million pot from next month.  Those diagnosed after
July 2012 and who cannot sue former employers as they have gone
bust or insurance details have disappeared will be eligible.

Ministers said the move ended "years of injustice".

Mesothelioma can take decades to develop, but when symptoms
emerge it progresses rapidly.  Most die within three years of
being diagnosed.

Around 2,000 people are diagnosed each year, and the numbers are
set to increase over the next 30 years, with an estimated death
toll of between 56,000 and 63,000, according to the Department
for Work and Pensions.

The cancer is most prevalent among those who worked in industries
with heavy exposure to asbestos up to the 1980s, including
construction, shipbuilding, engineering and power generation.

'Little hope'

Until now, victims and their families have been able to claim
damages under two pieces of legislation but the sums paid have
not generally exceeded GBP20,000.  The new fund will entitle UK
claimants to 80% of the average settlement paid out in civil
actions relating to mesothelioma, meaning payments will range
from GBP115,000 to GBP123,000.  On top of the payment, the fund
will pay out GBP7,000 towards legal costs.

The Mesothelioma Act was passed in January and allowed the
creation of the compensation pot, funded by the insurance
industry.  Those diagnosed before the scheme was first announced,
on July 25, 2012, will not be eligible.  Claimants will have to
demonstrate that they were negligently exposed to asbestos at
work and are unable to claim compensation because they cannot
track down a liable employer or insurer.

Work and Pensions Minister Mike Penning said: "This will end
years of injustice for mesothelioma victims and their families -
who have had to endure this terrible disease with little hope of
any compensation from the insurance industry.

"We have made it an absolute priority to bring in the scheme as
soon as legislation will allow, so I am pleased to announce that
victims will be able to apply for payments from next month."

According to government calculations, around 3,500 patients or
their dependants are likely to be eligible for support.

Research commitment

Dr John Moore-Gillon, honorary medical adviser at the British
Lung Foundation, said: "Mesothelioma is a particularly
devastating disease, killing over 2,400 people every year in the
UK, most of whom were innocently exposed to asbestos in the work
place.

"The government's announcement is therefore a positive move for
mesothelioma patients and their families, many of whom struggled
to gain any compensation at all until recently.

"What we urgently need to see now is greater commitment to
funding research into new treatments for mesothelioma."

He added: "Although compensation awards are very helpful, they
don't change the fact that most people who develop mesothelioma
will be dead in less than three years.

"Only research investment will change that -- it is what patients
and their families want, and with over 50,000 likely to die of
the disease in the UK within the next 30 years, it is something
we desperately need to prioritise."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Simpson Before Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mansfield News Journal reported that concerns from the public
that asbestos is being released into the air with the demolition
of the former John Simpson Middle School, a vacant property at
218 W. 4th St., are unfounded, according to Mansfield City
Schools and the contractor handling the demolition.

"I can tell you that they had to have the asbestos removed and
inspected before any demolition could begin," Mansfield City
Schools Spokesman Larry Gibbs said.

Deer Creek Excavating of Bellville, in charge of the Simpson
project, did not return a call seeking details on the demolition,
but earlier said the asbestos abatement, in which the cancer-
causing insulating and fire-retardant material was contained and
removed, was completed before the demolition began earlier this
winter.

"Deer Creek hired a subcontractor trained to handle that
material, and to my knowledge that was all taken care of quite a
long time ago, at least a year ago," Gibbs said.

The school district received five bids for the demolition
project, with Deer Creek putting in the low bid of $342,000.

Records from the Richland County Auditor's Office show the
Simpson site occupies 15 separate parcels bordered by 4th Street
on the south, Bowman Street on the east, Clairmont Avenue on the
north and Willow Street on the west.

The 15 parcels total 3.5 acres. Total land value of the site is
$73,880, according to the auditor's records.

A Cleveland construction firm finished building John Simpson
Junior High School in 1939, according to News Journal archives,
at a cost of $450,000. The building has sat empty since 2007.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Danger at Darwin Dump
--------------------------------------------
Katina Vangopoulos, writing for Herald Sun, reported that
asbestos has been found at a Darwin dump alongside one of the
city's busiest roads, sparking concerns for nearby residents.

Anthropologist Dr Bill Day -- who took a sample for testings --
said chrysotile asbestos, which is found in insulation, was
evident at the Ludmilla Heights dumping site off Dick Ward Drive.
He said the discovery was a worry for the residents at Minmarama
Village, and the environment.

"Kids go playing in there, the transporting trucks bring dust
past the community's properties - it's alarming," he said.

"There's no such thing as a safe level, even one fibre could
cause a deadly cancer to any individual."

Dr Day has been involved in settling the area as a conservation
zone for decades, and hoped work on the stockpile would
immediately stop.

"They started dumping here in 2006, they get rid of everything
... poured wet concrete," he said.

"Further testing must be made for the presence of dangerous
substances."

In April 2010, the Development Consent Authority was set to issue
an order ruling the site unlawful.  It had drawn complaints from
Minmarama residents, and from residents of the wider city who
labelled it an eyesore.

Nearly four years on, Dr Day said he was unhappy the issue had
not been resolved.

"This stockpile was established on land granted to Aboriginal
people as a conservation zone," he said.

"It compromised the integrity and purpose of the lease," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Cases Push Docket to New Record
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that Madison County, Ill., saw yet another record-breaking year
for new asbestos cases in 2013.

The Circuit Clerk's office reports that 1,678 new asbestos cases
were filed last year, eclipsing the previous record in 2012 by
more than 100.

A New York plaintiffs' firm that opened in Edwardsville a few
years ago -- Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Shkolnik -- filed the most at
525-plus, eclipsing hometown asbestos players Simmons of Alton
and Gori & Julian of Edwardsville.

Attorney Brian Huelsmann, partner at HeplerBroom in Edwardsville,
commented on the court's caseload doubling in the last four years
and tripling since 2004.

"That is, to me, a very significant increase in the amount of
asbestos cases," he said.

The numbers rose steadily from 2006 until 2011, increasing
roughly 100 cases per year with a slight drop in 2010. However,
approaching 2012, Madison County jumped more than 600 cases from
the previous year.

In years past, records show there were 325 cases filed in 2006;
455 cases in 2007; 659 cases in 2008; 814 in 2009; 752 in 2010;
953 in 2011 and 1,563 in 2012.

Even without this new record, Madison County is the largest
asbestos docket in the country and was dubbed the epicenter of
asbestos litigation by the American Tort Reform Association in
its 2013 "Judicial Hellholes" report.

It appears the numbers could continue to grow as long as first-
time trial settings continue to increase. Huelsmann said 674
first-time trial settings were set aside in 2013. There are 822
prepared for 2014.

Fast forward a year, and cases are already being set for 2015,
with more than 340 trial settings planned so far.  Those numbers,
he said, don't include the numerous cases that have been
continued from previous years.

Figures available this year show there were 117 new cases filed
in January -- a significant jump compared to 90 cases filed in
January 2013 and 77 cases in January 2012.

"If you do the math, Madison County is already set to have over
1,400 for 2014," Huelsmann said. "It doesn't look like it's
slowing down."

Attorney Raymond Fournie of Armstrong Teasedale in St. Louis
attributes the increase in cases to docket changes and more lung
cancer cases.

"Since the docketing system changed, it opened it up for more
lawsuits to be filed, and as a result, people were filing them,"
Fournie said. "We've seen an increase in filing of lung cancers,
which we haven't seen before."

Fournie explained that Illinois law requires that plaintiffs over
70 years old have a right to an expedited trial docket,
increasing the number of possible trial cases each week.

Fournie said it will take time to control the docket that Madison
County Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs "inherited." But he added
that Stobbs is doing his best to come up with a method that is
fair to all parties.

"He, I think, is trying to get his arms around it and deal with
it in the most equitable way" while still following
Constitutional mandates, Fournie said.

Huelsmann said steps towards a more organized docket have been
taken to alleviate the problems since Stobbs took over the
asbestos docket on Oct. 28.

"He is requiring plaintiffs to prioritize the cases they would
want coming up on the next trial docket," Huelsmann said.

In other words, he said Stobbs is asking plaintiffs firms to
focus on their top five cases for each trial docket, so that
defense firms know what to prepare for.

This new approach could be game-changing, he said, because in the
past a firm could bring 20 or more possible trial cases to each
docket, resulting in great expense and "a logistical nightmare"
for defense firms as they try to prepare for each.  He added that
before prioritizing was mandated, all cases presented as possible
trial cases were a threat.

"Trying to get the plaintiffs to prioritize their cases, you
know," Huelsmann said, "I think that's a step in the right
direction."

Since beginning his assignment over the largest asbestos docket
in the country, Stobbs has presided over two asbestos trials in
which juries entered verdicts in favor of defendants Georgia
Pacific and Crane Co.

Georgia Pacific won its case in November and Crane Co. won its
case just last month. Stobbs is Madison County's fourth asbestos
judge in three years, taking the reins from Associate Judge
Clarence Harrison in October.

When Harrison was presiding over the docket, he eliminated the
advance trial setting practice in March 2012. However, the ruling
may have opened the door for more lawyers, and potentially more
suits, to make their way into the local system.

"Which meant that it was a race to the courthouse," Fournie said.

Plaintiffs firms responded to the change by getting their cases
filed and obtaining a docket setting as quickly as possible, he
added.

"We're seeing more plaintiffs firms," Fournie said. "And if there
are more plaintiffs firms, there are going to be more filings."

In fact, in 2013, there were roughly 12 plaintiffs firms filing
asbestos lawsuits in Madison County. The numbers show:

- Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Shkolnik LLP filed more than 525 cases;

- Simmons Law Firm filed more than 300 cases;

- Gori, Julian & Associates filed about 275;

- Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd LLC filed about 140
  cases;

- Shrader & Associates filed 90 cases; and

- A group of about six law firms filed more than 25 cases

However, Fournie points out that these new plaintiffs firms
aren't entirely uncommon as experienced and ambitious lawyers
"splinter" off from big firms to make it on their own.

"The pool seems to expand as time goes on," he said.

The appeal for plaintiffs from across the country filing asbestos
claims in Madison County is due to its history of reserving large
numbers of trial slots.  Heulsmann said new firms are also filing
cases here because the state has not yet enacted legislation that
would prevent out-of-state plaintiffs with no connection to
Illinois from filing their cases here.

It is still uncertain how many of the 1,678 asbestos cases filed
in Madison County in 2013 were on behalf of out-of-state
residents, but the trend in previous years shows that roughly
nine of the 10 cases are not on behalf of Illinoisans.

Fournie said the most important thing is whether the jurisdiction
is improper for the defendant, adding that anyone has the right
to file a lawsuit anywhere.  Last year's new filings showed a
continuing trend of lung cancer over mesothelioma cases.

Fournie explained that there are more than 200,000 lung cancers
diagnosed every year across the country.

On a national level, as mesothelioma diagnoses decrease, lawyers
are filling the spaces left by decreasing mesothelioma cases with
lung cancer cases. However, it appears mesothelioma cases have
remained fairly consistent in Madison County.

Huelsmann said his firm's record of asbestos filings show 1,674
suits, four less than the figures provided by the Madison County
Circuit Clerk's office.  Of those 1,674 cases, he confirmed that
at least 650 of the new cases in 2013 were lung cancer cases that
his firm is handling.

Traditionally, asbestos lawsuits were mesothelioma cases, but as
a result of advertisements, a new lung cancer trend has
"significantly increased this docket," Huelsmann said.  He added
that if it wasn't for lung cancer cases, Madison County would
probably be seeing docket numbers near the 2009 and 2010 new case
numbers.

Huge numbers in Madison County put a burden on the courts and tax
payers, Fournie said, but the cases are going to be filed
somewhere.

"It's not like if a case isn't filed in Madison County, it's not
going to be filed anywhere," he said.

The method in place is a natural way of handling these asbestos
cases as long as they are litigated in an orderly fashion,
Fournie said. However, they will become a problem if there are
more trials, adding that trials are to be a last resort when
parties are unable to come to an agreement on their own.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Sign at Clements Causes Concern
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Keith, writing for WaayTV.com, reported that an asbestos
waring sign posted at Clements High School, in Sugar Land, Texas,
is causing concern for students and parents. But school officials
claim students are not in any danger as crews remove the cancer
causing material from the school.

The sign warning of cancer and lung disease caused a flood of
phone calls from parents concerned for students health and
safety.
The sign is posted to plastic and plywood blocking a wing of
classrooms. It is easily seen as students pass the hallway on
their way to and from classes. The sign states "Danger Asbestos.
Cancer and lung disease hazard. Authorized personnel only.

Respirators and protective clothing are required in this area."
"The students were mistaken because it said danger respirators
and breathing devices needed in this area. They did not
understand that meant the area behind the signs that has been
sealed off, not the hallways in which they're walking" said
Clements Principal Keith Hairrell.

Behind the sealed area, crews are removing old floor tiles that
contain some levels of asbestos. The wing has been sealed from
the rest of the school.  Hairrell said only certain areas of the
school need those tiles removed.

"The company that has been hired to do this is nationally
accredited. We use a forced vacuum system. They create vapor
barriers. They put up plastic barriers" said Limestone County
Schools Superintendent Tom Sisk.

The asbestos removal is small part of $5.4 million in renovations
at the school and will continue for the next year. When the
renovations are complete, the school will be remodeled inside and
out.

"At no time are kids at risk" said Sisk. "We wouldn't be allowed
to do it first off. The state wouldn't let us do it. Federal
would let us do it. I want to reassure families that the process
is the process but it's a safe one."

Sisk says the signs have to legally be posted to signify that the
work is being done.

"The precautions are there and it's a very costly process because
we're doing it by the book" said Sisk.

Hairrell said teachers plan to talk with the students to assure
them there is no danger.

"There is no risk to any of our students, our staff, our
visitors, or parents on this campus" said Hairrell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust to Pocket Profits From Armstong Stock Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Mekeel, writing for Lancaster Online, reported that "buy low,
sell high" is the classic advice for folks investing in stocks.
And TPG Capital and the Armstrong Asbestos Personal Injury Trust
are following it to a T.

TPG and the trust are selling a combined 3.90 million shares of
Armstrong World Industries stock to an underwriter for $53.80
apiece.  The price, disclosed in an Armstrong filing, is a tad
below the stock price of $54.32 two days earlier when the sale
was announced.

The transaction will trigger huge profits for each seller.
For TPG, the sale will divest its final 2.05 million shares of
Armstrong stock, the last of a 14 percent stake acquired in 2009
for $22.31 a share.  So the private equity firm will be ahead
$31.49 a share, or $64.6 million.

But that's not all.

While TPG had those shares, Armstrong paid two special dividends,
worth $22.29 a share combined. So add $45.7 million to TPG's
gross profit.

The total of the stock gain plus special dividends: $110.3
million.  The trust will do quite well too.

Armstrong gave the trust those shares in 2006, part of the
funding to enable the trust to pay asbestos-injury claims against
Armstrong.

So when the trust sells 1.85 million shares, the entire proceeds
of $99.5 million are profit.

Again, that's not all.

Going back to 2006 reels in a third special dividend, for total
special dividends of $26.79 a share. So add $49.6 million to the
trust's gross profit.

The total of the stock gain plus special dividends: $149.1
million.

Even underwriter Morgan Stanley will come out ahead.  It will
sell the shares to the public for $54.25 each, 45 cents more than
it's paying to acquire them.

Assuming all get sold, its gross profit will be $1.76 million.
Ironically, only Lancaster-based Armstrong will come up short.
It won't get a cent, since it's not the seller, but will have
expenses, such as preparing the public filings, of $700,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Illegally Dumped Around Clare
----------------------------------------------------------
The Journal reported that the council in Clare County, Ireland,
has launched a major investigation into the dumping of
potentially hazardous asbestos in parts of the county.  The local
authority said this morning that it has commissioned an external
independent investigation after asbestos waste materials were
found at 9 separate places, following a complaint from a member
of the public last June.

A spokesperson for the council said it will be liaising with
people who live near the affected sites to tell them about the
works that are to take place to get rid of the asbestos.

Six of the asbestos sites are in Kilkee while 3 are in Kilrush.
Some of the asbestos may be buried under the surface.  The
council said that the asbestos appears to have been deposited
"over an undetermined number of  years" up to last June.

"All of the asbestos material investigated to date consists of
broken pieces of asbestos cement water main," a spokesperson for
the council said. "It is considered that all of this material
originated on Clare County Council water services mains
replacement and mains repair works".

Prolonged inhalation of asbestos can cause serious health
problems. Asbestos has been blamed for some 120,000 deaths every
year from diseases caused as a result of exposure to the building
material.

The council said it is investigating why the material was not
disposed off according to legal requirements.  The council said a
specialist has been hired to give advice on how the asbestos can
be safely removed from the sites and that precautions will be
taken for workers who have to remove it.

"Clare County Council is conscious of the need to ensure that any
work to remove the waste is undertaken in such a manner that
ensures all risks are minimised," the spokesperson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Forces Closure of RPAC
------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Rollie, writing for Okotok Western Wheel, reported that the
Rotary Performing Arts Centre, in Okotoks, Alberta, Canada, is
closed until further notice due to asbestos exposure, forcing the
cancellation of events at the facility.

The facility had to be closed when part of the ceiling fell into
the theatre area as a result of work being done by contractors on
March 6, exposing asbestos in the building.

The Yuk Yuks on Tour event scheduled for March 8 is cancelled and
refunds will be issued to ticketholders. Other user groups and
bookings affected by the closure will be notified by the Town.

An asbestos removal company will begin remediation work and will
take a few days.

Prior to the 2010 renovations to the RPAC, an asbestos analysis
report indicated asbestos was located in the original ceiling and
wall plaster, and proper procedures were followed. Final
inspections deemed it safe for public use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Wins Summary Judgment in R.I. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that ArvinMeritor Inc. has been
awarded summary judgment in a brake case alleging asbestos
exposure after a Rhode Island court determined that the
plaintiffs' product identification evidence was based on
"conjecture."

In the March 5 order, the Rhode Island Superior Court said that
the evidence presented by the plaintiffs would require a
factfinder to draw a series of inferences.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Laverne E.
Hostetter, who allegedly developed malignant pleural mesothelioma
after being exposed to asbestos while employed as a heavy
equipment mechanic.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Stopped at Ingram Site for Fibro Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPXI.com reported that the owner of a construction site in
Ingram, in Pennsylvania, was told to stop all work until what's
on top of the building is tested for cancer-causing asbestos.

By the 1970s and 1980s, asbestos was largely phased out of
building construction materials.  Now, when those homes or
businesses that were made before then are demolished, there are
guidelines workers must follow because of huge health risks.

The family two houses down from the site called Channel 11 to get
answers.

Richard Reynolds lives on Middletown Road and is worried about a
potential health risk.

Reynolds, who worked in construction for years, said he believes
the beige shingles being removed from the top of the building
contain asbestos.

"I'm 90 percent sure it's asbestos," he said.

The building inspector ordered that work be stopped until testing
was completed.

"I saw a gentleman on the roof in the back with no protection --
just a dusk mask on.  He's probably not going to say anything
because he needs his job, but he is jeopardizing his health,"
said Reynolds.

Testing will take a few days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Federal Judge Allows Testimony on Kent
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an Illinois appellate judge denied a cigarette
manufacturer's motions to bar two experts from testifying that
the asbestos-containing "Micronite" filters once found in Kent
cigarettes contributed to the claimant's mesothelioma.

Defendants Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose,
H&V, sought to bar the testimonies of plaintiff experts Dr. James
Millette and Dr. Carl Brodkin.

Judge Joan B. Gottschall wrote in her Feb. 25 order that the
testimonies are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and
the Daubert rule.  According to Rule 702, a qualified expert may
testify if the expert's scientific knowledge will help the trier
of fact better understand the evidence; the testimony is based on
sufficient fact or data; the expert used proper methods; and
those methods have been reliably applied to the case at hand.

Citing Daubert, Gottschall stated that the duty of the court is
to determine reliability of the expert's principles and methods.

"What is important here is the soundness and care with which an
expert arrived at her opinion, focusing on the principles and
methodology, not the conclusion they generate," Gottschall wrote.

The complaint began in Cook County Circuit Court before Lorillard
removed it to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois Eastern Division in April.

Plaintiff Marilyn Quirin, special representative of the estate of
Ronald J. Quirin, is suing the defendants on a negligence theory,
alleging Ronald Quirin's mesothelioma was caused by his exposure
to asbestos while smoking Original Kent cigarettes between 1954
and 1956.

Sold by Lorillard, Kent cigarettes were manufactured with an H&V
"Micronite" filter that contained crocidolite asbestos.

Quirin claims Kent cigarettes were a significant contributing
factor to Ronald Quirin's mesothelioma and relies on Millette's
and Brodkin's expert reports to support the argument.

Brodkin was retained in 2012 to provide an expert opinion
regarding the cause of Ronald Quirin's mesothelioma, testifying
that his exposure to asbestos from smoking was a significant
factor and increased a risk of mesothelioma.

Brodkin reviewed Ronald Quirin's medical records, compiled his
occupational and environmental histories and assessed the latency
period between his asbestos exposures and the diagnosis of his
mesothelioma.

Gottschall ruled that Brodkin is qualified to testify as to the
connection between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, including
asbestos exposure from Kent cigarettes. Likewise, his knowledge
will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence, she
ruled.  She added that Lorillard and H&V's arguments over
methodology are more appropriate at trial "through a battle of
the experts."

The defense contends that Brodkin's testimony is a variant of the
"each and every exposure" theory, which implies that every
exposure to asbestos is a substantial factor in causing
mesothelioma. They add that the "each and every exposure" theory
has been rejected by numerous federal and state courts as
"unscientific and unsubstantial by evidence."

"Still other courts have distinguished testimony suggesting that
a de minimus exposure to asbestos could cause mesothelioma from
testimony that each significant exposure to asbestos could be a
cause," Gottschall wrote.  She added that the "each and every
exposure" theory isn't Brodkin's testimony.

"He explicitly rejected a single fiber theory of causation. He
believes Ronald experienced a significant exposure to asbestos by
smoking thousands of Kent cigarettes," Gottschall wrote.

Millette was retained in 2010 to design a test intended to
measure asbestos fiber release from two packs of Kent cigarettes
from the 1952 to 1956 time period. He also planned to testify
that Ronald Quirin would have been exposed to asbestos fibers
released from original Kent cigarettes when smoked.  He provided
studies analyzing the packages of cigarettes, the air filters and
crepe paper.  He found that asbestos concentrations in the
filters ranged from 20 to 40 percent in one and 10 to 20 percent
in the other.

Measuring the number of asbestos fibers released when the
cigarettes were smoked, Millette calculated a range of 0 to 56
fibers released per cigarette.

"It's my opinion that Mr. Quirin would have exposure from Kent
cigarettes based on the tests that we did showing that fibers are
released from Kent cigarettes during the smoking tests," Millette
testified.

Gottschall held that according to the Daubert analysis, Millette
is well qualified to offer an opinion regarding the types of
fibers he observed in his tests.

Also meeting the requirements of Rule 702, Gottschall wrote that
Millette's knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand
the evidence.

"The issue of whether asbestos fibers were released from original
Kent cigarettes when they were smoked is critical to Quirin's
case," she wrote. "Lay persons will be unable to resolve this
issued without scientific evidence."

The defense argues the cigarettes Millette used were more than 50
years old when they were analyzed for fiber release, claiming
there is "no substantial similarity" between the cigarettes
Millette examined and freshly manufactured cigarettes Ronald
Quirin smoked.

"Lorillard and H&V argue that it is likely that the cigarettes
and filters suffered significant degradation, and that they
therefore did not function as they would have in the 1950s,"
Gottschall stated.

The defendants further point out that Millette recognized that
the cigarettes were moldy or brittle, and argue the cigarettes'
condition may have changed significantly over time.

"In the court's view, this is not a challenge to Dr. Millette's
methodology, but rather a challenge to the information on which
he relied in conducting his analysis and drawing his
conclusions," Gottschall wrote.

"The question of whether an expert's 'theories are correct given
the circumstances of a particular case is a factual one that is
left for the jury to determine after opposing counsel has been
provided the opportunity to cross-examine the expert regarding
his conclusions and the facts on which they are based,'" she
added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washing Clothes Gave Me Cancer, Woman Warns
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Gazette reported that a woman from Crewkerne, Somerset,
England, who believes she developed a deadly cancer from washing
her husband's work clothes has spoken out to support others who
may be going through the same experience.

Doreen Gain, of Charlton Close, asked not to give ages is
battling an aggressive form of the disease called mesothelioma
linked with exposure to asbestos.  Mrs Gain opened up about her
ongoing fight against the disease after reading an article in the
Western Gazette about a man from Ilminster who was hoping to
enrol on a drug trial to overcome the illness.  She described the
news of her diagnosis as a "bombshell" and expressed her desire
to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos to prevent others
from feeling its devastating effects.

She said: "I cannot explain how hard it hit me -- the doctor came
and told me when I was on my own with no one around at all to
talk to.

"I was just left in a state of shock after that bombshell. I was
utterly flabbergasted and felt very lonely -- the doctor had told
me in the morning that it was inoperable and my husband could not
come until the afternoon. It has only really taken me until now -
- a year later -- to get over the shock.

"It is an experience that will never leave me, but since then my
family have been great and my daughter researches everything on
the internet for me to try out.

"My husband used to work with asbestos and we believe it came as
a result of me washing his work clothes in the 1960s and 1970s.
All you need is a couple of fibres for it to start off. I became
short of breath and had pains in my side. I was a regular in the
hospital to have fluid removed from my lungs.

"Then it was suggested to me that I should have a biopsy to get
to the bottom of it and I was diagnosed with a form of lung
cancer in December 2012."

Along with her husband David, Mrs Gain made the trip to Plymouth
last week to attend a support group to learn more about
mesothelioma and the potential advantages of a new drug called
Tremelimumab being trialled at Derriford Hospital in the city.

The drug, which has been approved for human trials for the
treatment of cancer, stimulates the patient's immune system to
attack cancerous tumours. Mr Gain said that getting the
confidence to go to the group had proved a great help for the
pair as they emotionally and physically prepare for further
treatment. The couple have encouraged others to do the same.

Mr Gain said: "The group is great, you get to share ideas,
knowledge and information as well as keeping an eye on the
national asbestos position, because there are still schools and
public buildings with asbestos in. I remember the moment I found
out, she phoned me up to tell me to get to the hospital as soon
as possible -- I didn't realise how urgent it was.

"I worked with asbestos all the time on various construction
sites but very little was known about it -- much like the new
drug, which will probably be a last resort for Doreen."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Program Outlines Changes to Hotel's Use of Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Healthy Hotels Program in Australia provides advice for
property operators in the fields of environmental health, textile
maintenance and nutrition. Healthy Hotels Certification is
utilised by over 4,000 accommodation guest rooms and is available
for products as well as maintenance service providers.

This legislation, which can be defined today as the Work Health
and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) (the Act)

And the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 (Cth) has been
adopted by the states of Queensland, NSW, the ACT and the NT. The
following codes of practise are approved under section 274 of the
Act:

   * Code of Practice: How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the
     Workplace; and

   * Code of Practice: How to Safely Remove Asbestos.

Healthy Hotels Program Environmental Advisor Dr Claire Bird of
Octief, recommends operators across all categories review their
property's position in view of the changes.

"The changes apply to all property operators who are currently
managing or controlling a workplace constructed prior to 31
December 2013, within the states and territories which have
adopted the federal policy."

Work Health & Safety Regulations 2011 state that operator
responsibilities include ensuring asbestos at the workplace is
identified, the location of asbestos is clearly indicated, all
found asbestos is recorded in a register and an asbestos
management plan is implemented where asbestos has been identified
or likely to be there at times. All asbestos samples taken must
be analysed by a NATA Accredited laboratory and the asbestos
register must be maintained with up to date information and must
be readily accessible at the workplace.

According to the new legislation, the deadline for complying with
the new asbestos register and management plan requirements was 1
January 2014.

Operators who believe they may be in breach of the requirements
are encouraged to take action by speaking with an organisation
specialising in environmental health.

For works conducted outside of the four adopting jurisdictions,
state based legislation applies in addition to the Commonwealth
legislation. In South Australia, the legislation is the
Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act (SA) 1986 along with
the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 2010.

For Victoria, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Vic) 2004
and Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (Vic) 2007 apply.
Western Australia observes the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(WA) 1984; and the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations
(WA) 1996. And in Tasmania, the Workplace Health and Safety Act
(Tas) 1995 and Workplace Health and Safety Regulations (Tas) 1998
apply.

Works conducted in South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and
Western Australia, are also subject to the National Occupational
Health and Safety Commission's (NOHSC) Code of Practice for the
Management and Control of Asbestos in the Workplace (NOHSC: 2018
(2005)) www.healthyhotelsprogram.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona dismissed the complaint styled Jose Antonio
Macias, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO.
CV 13-2373-PHX-DGC (MHB)(D. Ariz.) for failure to state a claim.
The complaint, filed by an inmate who is confined in the Maricopa
County Towers Jail, alleges, among other things, that he is
exposed to black mold, asbestos, rust and corrosion.  A full-text
copy of Judge Campbell's March 18, 2014, Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Eaz96Qfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reilly-Benton Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Najolia, Jr., was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2011 and
died as a result of his diagnosis about one year later in 2012.
The Plaintiffs allege that Najolia, Jr.'s diagnosis and
subsequent death resulted at least in part from secondary
exposure to asbestos that his father, Frank Najolia, Sr., brought
home on his clothing after working at the Avondale Shipyard
between 1960-1963.  The Plaintiffs contend that Najolia, Sr. was
a pipefitter at Avondale from 1960 to 1963, and that in his
capacity as a pipefitter, he worked on vessels doing air-
conditioning work.  In the course of that work, the Plaintiffs
allege that Najolia, Sr. was exposed to asbestos fibers when
removing or repairing pipes on vessels, and then tracked such
fibers home on his clothing where his then-teenage son, Najolia,
Jr., was exposed to those fibers when he helped do Najolia, Sr.'s
laundry.  Between 1960-1963, the Plaintiff alleges that Reilly-
Benton Company, Inc., supplied asbestos-containing products for
use on vessels in the Avondale Shipyard, primarily in the form or
pipe block and pipe covering.

Judge Carl J. Barbier of the of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted Reilly-Benton filed a
motion for summary judgment, after finding that (1) there is no
admissible evidence placing Najolia, Sr., on the ships doing air
conditioning work, and (2) there is no evidence that Najolia,
Sr., ever came into contact with Reilly-Benton's products.

The case is NAJOLIA v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP SYSTEMS, INC., ET
AL., SECTION: "J" (2), CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-821 (E.D. La.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision dated March 17, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/K9SPgdfrom Leagle.com.

JoAnn Najolia, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Bickford, Esq.,
Jason Zachary Landry, Esq., Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq., Neil
Franz Nazareth, Esq., and Roshawn H. Donahue, Esq., at Martzell &
Bickford, in New Orleans, Lousiana.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Esq. -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Angela M. Bowlin, Esq. --
abowlin@frilot.com -- Meredith K. Keenan, Esq. --
mkeenan@frilot.com -- Peter R. Tafaro, Esq. -- ptafaro@frilot.com
-- Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq. -- rzotti@frilot.com -- and James
H. Brown, Jr., Esq. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- at Frilot L.L.C..

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Esq. -- tomc@willingham-law.com -- Jeanette Seraile-
Riggins, Esq. -- jeanettesr@willingham-law.com -- and Jennifer D.
Zajac, Esq. -- jenniferz@willingham-law.com -- at Willingham
Fultz & Cougill.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Esq. -- wwatkins@fpwk.com -- Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Esq. -- ren@fpwk.com -- and Mary Reeves Arthur, Esq. --
arthurm@fpwk.com
-- and Ronald Dean Church, Jr., Esq., at Dean Church Law, LLC.

Foster Wheeler, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., and
Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C..

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Ernest G.
Foundas, Esq. -- efoundas@kuchlerpolk.com -- Francis Xavier
deBlanc, III, Esq. -- fdeblanc@kuchlerpolk.com -- McGready Lewis
Richeson, Esq. -- mricheson@kuchlerpolk.com -- Melissa M.
Desormeaux Fuller, Esq. -- mdesormeaux@kuchlerpolk.com -- Michael
H. Abraham, Esq. -- mabraham@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Milele N. St.
Julien, Esq. -- mstjulien@kuchlerpolk.com -- at Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC; and Craig Roth Webb, Esq. --
cwebb@ryan-law.us -- at James Ryan III & Associates, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Whistleblower's Suit Partially Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County,
partially granted the motion to dismiss a whistleblower's
complaint captioned CARLOS BURGOS and HARRY SOTO Plaintiffs, v.
CLINTON HOUSING 10th STREET PARTNERS and CLINTON HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. Defendant, DOCKET NO. 150036/13 (N.Y.
Sup.).  The motion to dismiss is granted to the extent of
dismissing the causes of action for the negligent infliction of
emotional distress and for negligence.  The first causes of
action under Labor Law Section 740 will continue.

In the case, Frank Fontaino and another supervisor of Clinton
Housing Development, Inc., Amel Zunic, accused the plaintiffs of
calling the Department of Environmental Protection to alert the
department of illegal asbestos removal.

A full-text copy of Judge Madden's Decision dated March 12, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/riDTQUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 NY Fibro Cases Consolidated for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to NEYRA
BEGIM, Plaintiffs, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, and WAYNE BRYANT AND SHANNON BRYANT, Plaintiffs, v.
ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190125/12, INDEX NO.
190161/13 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme
Court, New York County, granted the motion to consolidate 17
asbestos cases for trial.  A full-text copy of Judge Kern's
Decision dated March 14, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/J6vbhzfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Comardelle" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied a motion to remand to the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, an asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit captioned MICHAEL J. COMARDELLE v.
PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., SECTION I, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 13-6555 (E.D. La.), after determining that defendant
CBS Corporation ("Westinghouse") has made a sufficient showing
with respect to the Plaintiff's design-defect claims to entitle
it to removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).  A full-
text copy of Judge Africk's Decision dated March 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/wvif2wfrom Leagle.com.

Michael J Comardelle, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Esq., Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Esq., Dylan A. Wade,
Esq., Jonathan Brett Clement, Esq., Lauren Roussel Clement, Esq.,
and Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Esq., at Roussel & Clement, in La
Place, Louisiana.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, incorrectly named Albert Bossier Jr.,
Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant, represented
by Gary Allen Lee, Esq. -- glee@leefutrell.com -- Anita Ann
Cates, Esq. -- acates@leefutrell.com -- Darren M. Guillot, Esq.,
and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq. -- rperles@leefutrell.com -- at
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP; and Michael Scott Minyard, Esq., at
Barfield & Associates.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq., Ernest G. Foundas,
Esq., Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Esq., McGready Lewis Richeson,
Esq., Michael H. Abraham, Esq., and Milele N. St. Julien, Esq.,
at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Cajun Company Inc., incorrectly named as The Cajun Company,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James L. Pate, Esq.
-- jpate@neunerpate.com -- and Jason T. Reed, Esq. --
jreed@neunerpate.com -- at NeunerPate.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H.
Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., Peter R. Tafaro,
Esq., and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C.

Chevron Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tim Gray, Esq., Forrest Ren Wilkes, Esq.,
Jason K. Elam, Esq., and Troy Nathan Bell, Esq., at Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan
Beth Kohn, Esq. -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Douglas Kinler, Esq. --
dkinler@spsr-law.com -- James R. Guidry, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr-
law.com -- and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq. -- louiso@spsr-law.com --
at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, incorrectly named Foster-Wheeler LLC,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., and
Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin,
Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., Peter
R. Tafaro, Esq., and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq. --
kcourington@courington-law.com -- Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq. --
bmoore@courington-law.com -- Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Esq. --
jburg@courington-law.com -- Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq. --
jmclaughlin@courington-law.com -- and Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Esq.
-- jhilbun@courington-law.com -- at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq., Christopher Thomas Grace,
III, Esq., Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq., Erin Helen Boyd,
Esq., and Laura M. Gillen, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP & Tracy C.
Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- at Liskow & Lewis.

J Melton Garrett, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates,
Esq., Darren M. Guillot, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq.,
at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP; and Michael Scott Minyard, Esq.,
at Barfield & Associates.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Blaine
Augusta Moore, Esq., Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Esq., Jennifer H.
McLaughlin, Esq., and Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Esq., at Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry,
Esq., and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com --
Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq. -- ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- and Angela J.
O'Brien, Esq. -- aobrien@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., and
Angela J. O'Brien, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pharmacia LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Darryl J. Foster, Esq. -- dfoster@bradleyfirm.com -- David Edmund
Redmann, Jr., Esq. -- dredmann@bradleyfirm.com -- and Kimberly C.
Delk, Esq. -- kdelk@bradleyfirm.com -- at Bradley, Murchison,
Kelly & Shea, LLC.

PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by James M. Garner, Esq., Christopher Chocheles,
Esq., and Paul R. Trapani, III, Esq., at Sher, Garner, Cahill,
Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Esq., Diane S. Davis, Esq.,
Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Esq., and Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq. at
Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Esq. --
klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- Anne Elizabeth Medo, Esq. --
amedo@hmhlp.com -- David C Bach, Esq. -- dbach@hmhlp.com --
Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Esq. -- elassus@hmhlp.com -- Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Esq. -- rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- at Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Forrest Ren Wilkes, Esq., at Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz &
Tardy, LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Esq. --
David.Bienvenu@bblawla.com -- Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Esq. --
anthony.lascaro@bblawla.com -- John Allain Viator, Esq. --
John.Viator@bblawla.com -- Katie Dampier Chabert, Esq. --
katie.chabert@bblawla.com -- Lexi T. Holinga, Esq. --
lexi.holinga@bblawla.com -- and Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Esq. --
Tam.Bourgeois@bblawla.com -- at Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
& Holinga, APLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Dropped in Insurance Coverage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In a dispute about insurance coverage for silica- and asbestos-
related claims against Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York held that
Defendants The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company have a duty to defend those claims.  Travelers
subsequently impleaded six insurers -- AIU Insurance Company,
Century Indemnity Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Trygg-Hansa Insurance
Company, Ltd., and Industria Insurance Company -- seeking a
declaration of their obligations to contribute.

The Impleaded Insurers have moved to dismiss for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and
Industria individually has moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).  Danaher Corporation and
Atlas Copco North America LLC also seek an order holding
Travelers in contempt of the September 2012 Order.  Atlas Copco
individually seeks an order holding Travelers in contempt of the
Court's
April 5, 2013 Order requiring Travelers to pay its attorney's
fees expended in procuring the September 2012 Order.

In an opinion and order dated March 20, 2014, the Judge J. Paul
Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted Industria's 12(b)(2) motion and the Impleaded
Insurers' 12(b)(6) motions, but denied the motions for contempt.
Judge Oetken held that Travelers has failed to state a claim for
contribution, which requires, inter alia, allegations that the
defendant is a co-insurer of the same risk.

The case is DANAHER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants (S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Oetken's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/qeT1kmfrom Leagle.com.

Danaher Corporation, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, Third Party
Defendant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Brian Jonathan
Osias, Esq. -- bosias@mccarter.com -- and Gita F. Rothschild,
Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- at McCarter & English, LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Third Party Plaintiff, Third Party Defendant, Cross Claimant,
Counter Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Robert W.
Mauriello, Jr., Esq. -- rmauriello@grahamcurtin.com -- at Graham,
Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, formerly known as The
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Third Party Plaintiff, Third Party Defendant, Cross Claimant,
Counter Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Robert W.
Mauriello, Jr., Esq., at Graham, Curtin P.A..

North River Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant Third
Party Defendant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig
Morici, Esq. -- gerard.morici@mendes.com -- and Robert Michael
Flannery, Esq. -- robert.flannery@mendes.com -- at Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen
Gayle Margolis, Esq. -- emargolis@moundcotton.com -- at Mound
Cotton Wollan & Greengrass; and Gerard Craig Morici, Esq., and
Robert Michael Flannery, Esq., at Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Unigard Mutual Insurance Company Inc., Defendant, represented by
Robert Dwyer Sullivan, Jr, Esq. --
robert.sullivan@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser,Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by
Claude N. Grammatico, Esq., at Epstein, Frankini & Grammatico, in
Woodbury, New York.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John
Albert Mattoon, Esq. -- jamattoon@fmew.com -- and Andrew I.
Mandelbaum, Esq. -- aimandelbaum@fmew.com -- at Ford Marrin
Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP.

Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Esq., at Mendes & Mount, LLP.

International Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Anthony Gambardella, Esq. -- anthony.gambardella@rivkin.com --
and Jay Kenigsberg, Esq. -- jay.kenigsberg@rivkin.com -- at
Rivkin Radler, L.L.P..

Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen
Gayle Margolis, Esq., Gerard Craig Morici, Esq., and Robert
Michael Flannery, Esq., at Mendes & Mount, LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Esq., Gerard
Craig Morici, Esq., and Robert Michael Flannery, Esq., at Mendes
& Mount, LLP.

Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
John T. Wolak, Esq. -- jwolak@gibbonslaw.com -- at Gibbons, Del
Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Lloyd
Andrew Gura, Esq., and Eric J. Voigt, Esq., at Mound Cotton
Wollan & Greengrass.

Atlas Copco North America, Inc., Third Party Defendant, Cross
Claimant and Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene,
Esq. -- pbreene@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith.

Century Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Brian G. Fox, Esq., at Siegal & Park.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lloyd Andrew Gura, Esq., and Eric J. Voigt, Esq.,
Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.

Trygg-Hansa Insurance Company, LTD., ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by White & Case LLP.

Industria Insurance Company LTD., ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Paul E. Breene, Esq., at Reed Smith.


                             *********

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  * * *