CAR_Public/140425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 82

                             Headlines


ALMAS BUSINESS: Fails to Properly Pay Hourly Employees, Suit Says
BATH & BODY: Sued for Not Operating Blind-Accessible POS Devices
CME GROUP: Faces Class Action Over High-Frequency Trading Fraud
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Court Revives Class Action Over Mass Layoffs

DH PACE CO: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premiums
DISNEY STORE: Violated Americans With Disabilities Act, Suit Says
EASTERN CAPE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Teacher Salaries
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Estimates to Pay $32MM in Ceridian Settlement
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wins Favorable Order in RESPA "Violation" Suit

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Dist. Court Consolidates Chemical Leak Suits
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Dist. Court to Hear Chemical Leak Suits
GMAC MORTGAGE: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $2 Million
HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Awad" Suit Alleging Massive Pyramid Scheme
HUDSON CITY: Enters MoU to Settle Lawsuits Over Merger With WTC

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Directors Named in Suit Over Jefferies Merger
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Consumer Suit "Sykes" Stayed Pending Appeal
LULULEMON USA: Faces "New" Class Suit Alleging ADA Violations
MACMAHON HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Threat of Shareholder Class Action
MBNA BANK: Settles Class Action Over Credit Card Fees

MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss RESPA "Violations" Suit Denied
MICHIGAN: Saline Teacher Joins Suit Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban
MONSANTO CO: Callagy Law Firm Sued Over Class Action Fees
MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Now Concluded
MOODY'S CORP: Dismissal of Claims in Abu Dhabi Bank Suit Appealed

MOODY'S CORP: Lawsuit Over Rhinebridge SIV Voluntarily Dismissed
MOTOR CITY CARWASH: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
NELNET INC: Settles "Yaakov" TCPA Violation Suit v. Unit
NELNET INC: Settles "Zaw" Suit Over Debt Collection Act Violation
NELNET INC: Summary Judgment Bid in "Grant Keating" Case Pending

NEW YORK, NY: Affording Housing Residents Files Suit v. HPD
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Accord in Suit Over Facebook Beacon Upheld
PFIZER INC: Faces "Woltcheck" Suit in Pennsylvania Over Lipitor
PIONEER NATURAL: Settles Lawsuits Over Pioneer Southwest Merger
PIONEER NATURAL: Tex. Lawsuits Over Merger Voluntarily Dismissed

PIONEER NATURAL: "Wilson" Plaintiff Wants to be in Tex. Accord
PLANDOME TAXI: Judge Trims Claims in Wage Class Action
PNM RESOURCES: Still Involved in Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
RADIAN GROUP: "Samp" Plaintiffs Abandon Appeal v. Nixing of Case
RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Unit Moves to Dismiss "White v. PNC"

RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Unit Loses Bid to Junk "Menichino" Suit
RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Unit Loses Bid to Dismiss "Manners" Suit
RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Dismissed From "Cunningham" Lawsuit
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Suit in Discovery
REGENCY ENERGY: Enters Accord to Settle Suits Over PVR Purchase

SAL-MARK SERVICES: Deprives Workers of Lawful Wages, Suit Claims
SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles Lawsuit Against Eden Memorial Park
SILVER SPRING: Certification Motion in "Edwards" Suit Denied Anew
SMARTHEALTH INC: Sends Unsolicited Facsimiles, Class Claims
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Millennium Funds Suit Accord Awaits Approval

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: GlobeOp Seeks to Appeal Certification Order
STERICYLE INC: Denies Allegations of Illegal Price Increases
SUBWAY RNR: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wage to Class Members
SUNRISE COMMUNITY: Faces "Millanes" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
SUNSOF INC: Class Seeks to Recover Money Damages for Unpaid Wages

TAMPA, FL: USEP Files Class Action Over PLC Meetings
TECO ENERGY: Dismissal of Suit v. PGS Now Final, Non-appealable
US AIRWAYS: Fleet Service Workers File Labor Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Enters MoU in Gender Bias Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settles 629 Suits Over MoistureLoc

VIVUS INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
W.R. GRACE: Lawsuit Over Reorganization Dismissed With Prejudice
W.R. GRACE: Asbestos Property Damage Claims Now in PD Trust
WALTER INVESTMENT: Fla. Court Dismisses "Cummings" Stock Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Settles Suit Over Mismanaged Investors' Collateral

WRIGHT MEDICAL: Dismissal of Stock Suit Over Bone Graft On Appeal

* Class Action Spending to Continue to Rise, Survey Says


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 560 PI Suits as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Corp. Fibro Removal Cost Pegged at $0.3MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 720 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 51,490 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,315 Claims at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Had 67,983 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Ruling Rocked Fibro World
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPL Corp. Unit Unable to Estimate Fibro ARO

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 362 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Paid $4.8-Mil. to Settle PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $59.7MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Halts Drilling at Queensland Sites

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Owner Gets Jailed for Fibro Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town Approves Fibro Removal Project at Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Contract on Hold Pending Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Follow Illegal Fibro Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Cop Wins $75,000 in Whistle-Blower Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Battle With Fibro in Melbourne Shop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Property Owners Fined for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Drilling Mud Engineers File Suit to Seek Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Jury Awards $7.2-Mil. in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Linked to Pensioner's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Origin Energy Restarts Rigs After Fibro Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawkins Officials Hope Contaminated House Sells
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Hears Ford Worker Was Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gauteng Gov't to Phase Out Fibro Roofing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Milford on Sea Beach Huts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Sounds Alarm for Renovators
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Defendants Succeeding in Rare Trials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Majority of Scottish Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Horwich Residents Air Fears Over Loco Works Devt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Wins 6-Figure Payout Over Husband's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Say Wis. Lawsuit Bill Denies Justice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Many U.S. Workers at High-Risk to Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Sues EI DuPont for Ex-Worker's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $3-Mil. Awarded to Mesothelioma Victim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missed Fibro Irks Waterloo City Council

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Led to Fatal Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Honolulu Hale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Threat to Scotland's Woodland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students Concerned About Fibro at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockland's Sain Bldg. Gets Weekend Fibro Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cigarettes Made of Fibro, Feces Seized
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Hall on Fire in Meadowfield, Durham
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Fight Unsealing of Info in Garlock
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust at 21 Francophone Schools Cleaned Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Continues to Ripple Effect

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Crisis at Lords
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Khyber Fibro Risks Don't Concern Heritage Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup at Paterson Armory Moves Ahead
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Storm Lake High to Remove Fibro in Skylights
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lampasas Self-Reports Possible Fibro Violation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms $6.5MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dozens Displaced Due to Fibro Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell, et al., Join Bids to Unseal Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Verdict for Cigarette Manufacturer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Slows Tributary Brewing Co. Opening

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rain Uncovers Fibro Worry From Old Quarry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Riddled Plant Demolition Could be Refused
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Montefiore Medical Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Open Claims Files Gains Strength
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Hears Case Over Evidence Destruction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Insulation Getting Removed at GDCI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bldg Firm Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal From KiwiRail Locomotives Delayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer May Get More From Ford
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Court Dismisses Nearly 6,000 Fibro Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Insurance Suit Allowed to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss "Amick" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Remand "Garza" Suit Recommended
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in MSA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Denied Summary Judgment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Won Partial Judgment in "Hicks" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Prelim. Injunction in Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malpractice Suit v. Law Firms Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Scott" Suit Partially Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Issues Revised Order in "Martinez" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Allowed to Join Bid to Remove "Harrell" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Lovelace" Suit


                             *********


ALMAS BUSINESS: Fails to Properly Pay Hourly Employees, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Flores, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Almas Business, Inc. d/b/a Perfect Brow Bar, Arif
Karowalia, and Almas Karowalia, Case No. 6:14-cv-01046-KHV-KMH
(D. Kan., February 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly employees in the manner
required by federal and state laws.

Almas Business, Inc., doing business as Perfect Brow Bar, is
incorporated and headquartered in Texas.  The Karowalias own and
operate Almas Business.  The Defendants operate at least 17
Perfect Brow Bar mall stores in at least nine states, including
Kansas.  Perfect Brow Bar provides hair removal and other
esthetic services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
          Lindsey Smith, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Telephone: (316) 267-6371
          Facsimile: (316) 267-6345
          E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
                  lsmith@foulston.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Abdul Q. Arif, Esq.
          Marcos A. Montemayor, Esq.
          AM LAW, LLC
          209 East William Street, Suite 103
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 261-8777
          Facsimile: (316) 448-7408
          E-mail: aa@amlawllc.com
                  mm@amlawllc.com


BATH & BODY: Sued for Not Operating Blind-Accessible POS Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bath & Body Works, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-20590-PAS
(S.D. Fla., February 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendant failed
to design, construct, and own or operate Point of Sale Devices
that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
people, including the Plaintiff.

Bath & Body Works, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Reynoldburg, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com
                  tanderson@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 960-2242
          Facsimile: (305) 960-2201
          E-mail: lrtaseff@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          J. Colin Knisely, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1112
          E-mail: CKnisely@duanemorris.com


CME GROUP: Faces Class Action Over High-Frequency Trading Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCoy, writing for USA TODAY, reports that three traders
have accused the world's largest futures market of letting high-
frequency traders get an improper advance look at price and
market data and execute trades using the data before other market
participants.

In a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status, the traders
alleged that the CME Group secretly maintained the practice from
2007 through this month and financially victimized an untold
number of market participants by engaging in "a fraud on the
marketplace."

The traders charged that CME, owner of the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade, falsely assured all market
participants that their exchange fees and data-fees gave them
access to financial data "in real time."

But high-frequency traders, equipped with powerful computing
equipment that can receive and execute trades on financial data
in tiny fractions of a second, got the market information before
anyone else, according to the April 11 lawsuit filed in the
Northern District of Illinois.

By allowing the procedure and failing to disclose it to all
traders, the CME "institutionalized market manipulation and
created an opaque and hidden marketplace for financial futures,"
the lawsuit charged.

The case was filed amid government and regulatory probes
examining whether high-frequency traders have an unfair edge over
competitors.  The investigations have gained increased public
focus with last month's publication of "Flash Boys," a critical
examination of high-frequency trading by author Michael Lewis.

In response, the CME Group said the lawsuit was "devoid of any
facts supporting the allegations" and demonstrated "a fundamental
misunderstanding of how our markets operate."

"It is sad when plaintiffs' lawyers bring a suit based on a
desire for publicity, and in the rush to file a suit fail to
undertake even the most basic effort to determine if there is any
basis for their allegations," said the CME Group, calling the
case "without merit."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of futures traders William
Braman, Mark Mendelson and John Simms, but seeks class-action
status to represent other market participants allegedly damaged
by preferential treatment of high-frequency trading.

The action accuses the CME Group of fraud, fraudulent
concealment, market manipulation and disseminating false
information.  It seeks unspecified compensation for financial
damages.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Hartley-Culp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Credit Management Company, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00282-JMM (M.D. Pa., February 17, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant negligently and willfully contacted the Plaintiff and
others on their cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy.

Credit Management Company is a corporation whose state of
incorporation and principal place of business is in the state of
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James McNally, Esq.
          Justin M. Tuskan, Esq.
          METZ LEWIS BRODMAN MUST O'KEEFE LLC
          535 Smithfield Street, Suite 800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 918-1100
          E-mail: jmcnally@metzlewis.com
                  jtuskan@metzlewis.com


DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Court Revives Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
hundreds of former Dewey & LeBoeuf employees took one step closer
to recovering money from the remains of the bankrupt law firm.

In an April 11 ruling, Judge Martin Glenn of U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Manhattan concluded that Dewey did not give its
employees adequate written notice of mass layoffs in the weeks
before its May 2012 closure.

The decision keeps alive a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf
of 430 former employees in New York and Washington, D.C.,
alleging Dewey violated the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act.

Under the law, companies with more than 100 employees must give
60 days' written notice of impending layoffs. (Some states,
including New York, have their own version of the law with a
lower employee threshold or longer notice period.)

In Dewey's case, management sent two warning emails, including a
message on May 10, 2012, that informed staff and attorneys they
would be terminated in five days because of the "extraordinary
difficulties" the firm was facing.

Dewey argued in defense of the suit that the sudden collapse of
merger talks with another firm and attempts to seek capital to
keep Dewey afloat qualified it for two WARN Act exceptions.
Judge Glenn disagreed, ruling that the firm needed to explain to
its employees in writing why those exceptions applied but failed
to do so.

Jack Raisner, a partner at Outten & Golden who represents the
former employees, told Bankruptcy Beat on April 11 that the
judge's ruling confirmed what he's believed for two years: "That
those are not good notices."

Under Dewey's Chapter 11 plan, more than $3 million has been set
aside to cover WARN claims if the employees end up with a victory
in the class action.  Mr. Raisner said his clients could receive
additional money from the general pool for unsecured creditors,
depending on how the litigation goes.

For many of Dewey's former employees, the news is bittersweet;
those in the firm's smaller offices outside New York and D.C.
don't qualify under the WARN Act to join the case.


DH PACE CO: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Williams, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated v. D. H. Pace Company, Inc. and E. E. Newcomer
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00161-HFS (W.D. Mo., February
17, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to (i) unpaid
overtime premiums for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a
workweek, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

DH Pace is a Delaware Corporation, with its Headquarters and
principal place of business in Missouri.  DH Pace sells,
installs, and services commercial and residential access doors,
including garage doors, through various vendors and at least 25
of its own showrooms across the United States, under the
"Overhead Door Company" and "Ankmar" trade names.  EE Newcomer is
a Missouri Corporation, with its Headquarters and principal place
of business in Missouri.  EE Newcomer owns, operates, and
controls DH Pace.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          10601 Mission Rd, Suite 100
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                  Tracey.George@rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569-2629
          Facsimile: (816) 447-3939
          E-mail: tracey@davisgeorge.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert J. Hingula, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC - KCMO
          900 W. 48th Place
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: rhingula@polsinelli.com


DISNEY STORE: Violated Americans With Disabilities Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Disney Store USA, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-20588-MGC
(S.D. Fla., February 17, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.

Disney Store USA, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Pasadena, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com
                  tanderson@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Armando A. Rodriguez-Feo, Esq.
          WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.
          PO Box 10000
          Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830
          Telephone: (407) 828-5432
          Facsimile: (407) 938-4495
          E-mail: armando.rodriguez-feo@disney.com


EASTERN CAPE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Teacher Salaries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria John, writing for Mail & Guardian, three schools said
they are owed R3.15-million by the Eastern Cape education
department for teacher salaries it budgeted for over the last
three years, but did not pay.  These three schools are part of
nine who have come forward wanting to opt in to a class action
lawsuit, brought by the Legal Resources Centre (LRC), since it
was certified by the high court in Grahamstown on March 21.

The schools will join 32 others who are applicants in a case that
was launched in November last year.  The LRC, that represented
the applicants, and the department, which was one of the
respondents, settled the case out of court also on March 21.  The
settlement agreement directs the department to appoint the
schools' temporary teachers as permanent employees and pay back
R25-million to them that they had to raise themselves when the
department failed to pay their teachers.

"We've worked out that we are owed R1.5-million in teacher
salaries that the department should have paid.  It didn't pay
them so our school governing body had to raise money to pay
them," Gert Swanepoel, principal of George Randell Primary School
in East London, told the M&G.

When asked if he knew of other schools in this situation,
Mr. Swanepoel responded: "Oh ja, there are many schools very much
in the same predicament as we are.  If the department pays us
this money I will jump over the school's roof, I will be so
happy."

Mr. Swanepoel said that, along with many other principals, he had
tried numerous times to get the department to pay them back for
salaries they should never have had to pay out of their own
coffers in the first place.  When this was unsuccessful, legal
action was used against the department to try to solve this
problem, and the LRC has been at the forefront of this battle --
a battle that has a decade-long history in the province.

The settlement agreement also stated that the case had been
successfully certified to be a class action so any school in the
province facing the same problem can also apply to be reimbursed
the money owed to them for teachers' salaries.  Schools wanting
to opt-in as applicants in the class action were directed to
provide the LRC with a list of teacher vacancies at their school
and a list of payments made by the school for teacher salaries by
May 12.  The applicants were directed to file this information
with a "notice of motion seeking substantive relief on behalf of
the class . . . ", the agreement stated, to the court by May 20.
The matter is set down to be heard again on July 31.

                              Owed

Francois van den Berg, principal of Barkly East High School, said
last year the department budgeted for the school -- which has 470
pupils -- to have 18 teachers but it only ended up paying for 11
of them.

"We are owed R700 000 for paying teachers with our own money last
year and 2012," he said.  "We had to do this, otherwise there
would've been five or six classes without a teacher . . . and you
can't imagine that.  The whole school would be in chaos."

He said the department was not able to pay many teachers because
it is "bankrupt".

"They made such a mess in earlier years over teacher posts.  It
is paying for ghost teachers whose posts have been empty but they
are still getting paid and teachers who are teaching at schools
where they are not needed and won't move . . . but then they
don't have the money to appoint teachers to schools where they
are needed and pay teachers who are where they need to be."

Last year he did an informal survey of the schools in the
Sterkspruit area and found that at 10 schools there were 60
vacant teacher posts.

"We can afford to raise money and pay teachers ourselves but
other schools can't," he said.  "We are hopeful about the class
action. We hope the department will pay money to schools . . .
[because the schools] need that money to use it for other
purposes like basic maintenance."

                             Bold move

The LRC's launch of the class action suit was a bold move in the
face of this vast problem, and it is the first certified class
action in South African history, LRC's regional director
Sarah Sephton said.

Previously, applicants could just launch a class action but in
2011 the Constitutional Court decided that applicants would need
to get class actions certified before they were open to anyone to
opt in.  This means that applicants would need to prove "that the
matter involves definition of the class, identification of some
common claim or issue, existence of a valid cause of action,
suitable representative of the class, and that class action is
the appropriate procedure", said Ms. Sephton.

An advertisement inviting all Eastern Cape schools to join the
class action if they were experiencing the same problems was
published in provincial media.

Dion Bekker, principal of Gill Primary School in Somerset East,
said his school is owed R950 000 by the department.

"This is a great burden on school governing bodies that have to
raise money to pay salaries," he said.  "I don't think there is a
school that doesn't have this problem."

Ms. Sephton said it was "astonishing that the department appears
oblivious to its constitutional obligations to ensure that every
classroom has a teacher and that the teacher is in fact paid for
the work he or she does".

Departmental spokesperson Loyiso Pulumani referred the M&G to a
joint media statement with the LRC that said the opt-in class
action had "been consented to by the department as an indication
that it is not only those schools that have launched this
application that are of concern to the department".

                   'Substantive vacant posts'

"All schools have a right to voice their concerns whether in the
poverty stricken, far reaches of the province or in the wealthier
suburbs."

He said reimbursement of funds was dependent on schools complying
to conditions set out in the court order, such as teachers
occupying "substantive vacant posts [that are on] the provincial
educator posts [list]".

The joint media statement also said the department had recently
entered into "Collective Agreement No. 1 of 2014" with teacher
unions that "aimed at permanently appointing temporary educators
to vacant substantive posts and identifying, profiling and
placing the educators in excess to where they are most needed".


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Estimates to Pay $32MM in Ceridian Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. estimates that its portion of
the settlement entered by Ceridian to resolve claims brought by a
putative class of U.S. Fueling Merchants to be approximately $32
million, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, Ceridian entered into a
memorandum of understanding to resolve claims brought by a
putative class of U.S. Fueling Merchants. Under the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, which will need to be finalized in a
definitive settlement agreement and approved by the Court,
Ceridian has agreed to make a one-time cash payment of $100
million as part of a $130 million global settlement with other
defendants in the lawsuit, and to provide certain prospective
relief with respect to specific provisions in its merchant
agreements. This settlement will provide Ceridian and affiliated
companies with a broad release of claims and will limit their
exposure to legal claims by merchants. The company estimates its
portion of the settlement to be approximately $32 million, which
will be recorded by the company in the first quarter of 2014 as a
result of the company's three-month lag in accounting for the
results of operations of Ceridian.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wins Favorable Order in RESPA "Violation" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois state court entered an order in favor of Fidelity
National Financial, Inc., recognizing the U.S. Supreme Courts
case Freeman v. Quicken Loans, according to Fidelity's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Two class action complaints titled Chultem v. Ticor Title
Insurance Co., Chicago Title and Trust, Co., and Fidelity
National Financial, Inc. and Colella v. Chicago Title Insurance
Co. and Chicago Title and Trust Co. are pending in the Illinois
state court against Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Chicago"),
Ticor Title Insurance Company ("Ticor"), Chicago Title and Trust
Company, and Fidelity National Financial, Inc., their parent,
(collectively "the Companies"). The Plaintiffs represent
certified classes of all borrowers and sellers of residential
real estate in Illinois who paid a premium for title insurance to
Chicago and Ticor which was split with attorney agents for
services which were performed in issuing the policies. The
complaint alleges the Companies violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and by doing so violated the
Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The suit seeks compensatory damages in the amount of the premium
split paid to the attorney agents, interest, punitive damages, a
permanent injunction, attorney's fees and costs. Class
certification was denied on May 26, 2009, but the plaintiffs
appealed.  The Court of Appeal reversed and the case was remanded
to the trial court for certification and subsequent proceedings.
During 2013 and continuing through February 2014, the case
progressed. On February 7, 2014, the court entered an order in
favor of the company recognizing the U.S. Supreme Courts case
Freeman v. Quicken Loans, which determined that if a person with
whom fees were split performed any service then there was no
RESPA violation. The Plaintiff will have an opportunity to appeal
the Court's decision.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Dist. Court Consolidates Chemical Leak Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver in Charleston, West Virginia,
on April 18 issued an order granting limited consolidation of
various lawsuits over the chemical leak from one of Freedom
Industries' storage tanks in Charleston.

In granting limited consolidation, Judge Copenhaver ruled that:

     1. The civil actions are consolidated for purposes of
        briefing and resolving the matter of remand;

     2. That Desimone Hospitality Services v. West Virginia
        American Water Company, civil action 2:14-14845, is
        designated as the lead case, with all further filings
        to be captioned and docketed in that case pending the
        further Court order;

     3. Counsel for the parties are directed to designate by
        agreement no more than three of their number from each
        the plaintiff and the defendant sides to serve as
        liaison counsel for purposes of the consultations
        required and to notice the designated lawyers on the
        record on or before May 1, 2014; and

     4. In lieu of the briefing order entered in the bankruptcy
        court on March 27, 2014, liaison counsel is directed to
        meet and confer no later than May 8, 2014, for purposes
        of arriving at a proposed stipulated briefing schedule
        designed to result in a single set of omnibus briefing
        that addresses all of the arguments for remand found
        in the pending remand motions.

As of March 3, 2014, about 62 civil actions had been instituted
against various defendants relating to the incident.

A copy of the Court's April 18 Order is available at
http://is.gd/JRqr6cfrom Leagle.com.

Freedom Industries Inc., is engaged principally in the business
of producing specialty chemicals for the mining, steel and cement
industries.  The Debtor operates two production facilities
located in (a) Nitro, West Virginia; and (b) Charleston, West
Virginia.

The company, connected to a chemical spill that tainted the water
supply in West Virginia, sought protection under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. W.Va. Case No. 14-bk-20017) on
Jan. 17, 2014.  The case is assigned to Judge Ronald G. Pearson.
The petition was signed by Gary Southern, president.

The Debtor is represented by Mark E Freedlander, Esq., at McGuire
Woods LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stephen L. Thompson,
Esq., at Barth & Thompson, in Charleston, West Virginia.  On
March 18, the Bankruptcy Court approved the hiring of Mark
Welch at MorrisAnderson in Chicago as Freedom's chief
restructuring officer.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Dist. Court to Hear Chemical Leak Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver in Charleston, West Virginia,
on April 16 ruled that the lawsuits over the chemical leak from
one of Freedom Industries' storage tanks in Charleston will be
heard in district court, and not in bankruptcy court.
Specifically, Judge Copenhaver granted omnibus motions to
withdraw reference of the cases to the bankruptcy court.

The Motions to Withdraw Reference were filed around March 3,
2014.  At the time of the filing of the Omnibus Motions, 62 civil
actions had been instituted against various defendants relating
to the incident.

Freedom Industries has argued that, in those cases where it is
not named, parties may assert indemnity or contribution claims
against it at a later time.  On Feb. 21 and 22, 2014, Freedom
removed to the bankruptcy court those state actions in which it
was named a defendant.  On Feb. 24, 2014, West Virginia American
Water Company removed to the District court as "related-to" cases
each of the state actions in which Freedom was not named.

According to Judge Copenhaver, "the plaintiffs in the
aforementioned adversary proceedings appear entitled to a jury
trial as requested in each of the actions covered by the motions
for withdrawal of reference. It further does not appear that any
party desires to consent to the bankruptcy court conducting jury
trials in these matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(e), nor
that such right to a jury trial has been somehow waived by the
claims process to date.  Inasmuch as many of these related-to
cases involve traditional personal injury tort claims of a non-
core variety, the better course is to withdraw reference
immediately to assure efficient case administration."

A copy of the Court's April 16 Order is available at
http://is.gd/uKYsl9from Leagle.com.

Freedom Industries Inc., is engaged principally in the business
of producing specialty chemicals for the mining, steel and cement
industries.  The Debtor operates two production facilities
located in (a) Nitro, West Virginia; and (b) Charleston, West
Virginia.

The company, connected to a chemical spill that tainted the water
supply in West Virginia, sought protection under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. W.Va. Case No. 14-bk-20017) on
Jan. 17, 2014.  The case is assigned to Judge Ronald G. Pearson.
The petition was signed by Gary Southern, president.

The Debtor is represented by Mark E Freedlander, Esq., at McGuire
Woods LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stephen L. Thompson,
Esq., at Barth & Thompson, in Charleston, West Virginia.  On
March 18, the Bankruptcy Court approved the hiring of Mark
Welch at MorrisAnderson in Chicago as Freedom's chief
restructuring officer.


GMAC MORTGAGE: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that
GMAC Mortgage LLC and bankrupt Residential Capital LLC have
agreed to pay $2 million to settle a wage-and-hour class action
alleging they stiffed workers on proper meal and rest breaks in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to documents
filed in Washington federal court.

The plaintiffs in the case -- mortgage underwriters -- asked for
the court's preliminary approval of the deal with the two
affiliates of Ally Financial Inc. on April 11.  As part of the
agreement, 82 workers will share in one-third of the $2 million
total claims allowed as part of ResCap's bankruptcy
reorganization plan.

In 2010, two mortgage underwriters who worked at the Bellevue,
Wash., branch of Homecomings Financial, a GMAC brand, filed the
lawsuit on behalf of current and former employees of the
defendants alleging they were misclassified as exempt from
overtime pay and also denied proper meal periods and rest breaks.
The workers alleged they were routinely required to work evenings
and weekends without appropriate compensation.  Ultimately, 82 of
the 92 plaintiffs who opted into the suit filed proofs of claim.

In January 2011, the plaintiffs won their bid for class
certification, and the defendants' motion to dismiss the case was
turned down.  In May 2012, ResCap, a subsidiary of Ally and
parent company of GMAC Mortgage, filed for Chapter 11 in federal
court in New York.  The bankruptcy filing was intended to allow
Ally to separate itself from ResCap so it could move forward with
repaying the U.S. government for the bailout it received under
the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The bankruptcy stopped the FLSA class action, and in July 2012,
the plaintiffs filed for a motion requesting a kickstart of the
paused proceedings, which the court denied.  In July 2013, ResCap
and the creditors' committee filed a joint Chapter 11 plan, which
included provisions for settlements. Following the December 2013
creation of the ResCap Liquidating Trust, the parties in the wage
action began settlement discussions.

Under the companies' Chapter 11 plan, the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' counsel will receive cash payments in the amount of
36.3 percent of their respective allowed claims.  The Chapter 11
plan released Ally from any claims against ResCap.

Detroit-based Ally, originally named GMAC Inc., was formed in
1919 to provide financing to auto consumers, according to the
company. It later expanded its loan operations to include
mortgages, insurance, commercial finance and other products.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew Helland --
helland@nka.com -- of Nichols Kaster LLP and Beth E. Terrell of
Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC.

The defendant is represented by Peter H. Nohle --
Peter.Nohle@jacksonlewis.com -- Paul DeCamp --
DeCampP@jacksonlewis.com -- William J. Anthony --
AnthonyW@jacksonlewis.com -- and David R. Golder --
GolderD@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC.

The case is Bollinger et al v. Residential Capital LLC et al,
case number 2:10-cv-01123, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.


HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Awad" Suit Alleging Massive Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Kurt Orzeck, Erica Teichert and Stephanie
Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, report that an Herbalife Ltd.
investor hit the company with a putative class action in
California federal court on Monday, accusing the health
supplement distributor of operating a massive pyramid scheme
following reported investigations by the U.S. Department of
Justice and FBI.  The suit, filed on behalf of Abdul Awad, claims
that Herbalife and its executives inflated its stock price by
failing to disclose that its business was based on a pyramid
scheme, as alleged by activist investor Bill Ackman for over a
year.  Herbalife also published "materially false" financial
statements and hid that it pressured its members to buy more
products to resell as distributors, according to the suit.

News about the company, including a report on April 11 in the
Financial Times that Herbalife was under federal criminal
investigation, caused its stock price to plummet and injured
investors, Awad claims.  Following the publication of the
Financial Times article, stock in the nutrition and weight-loss
company dropped about 13 percent, to $51.48 per share.

Herbalife said in an April 11 statement that it had no knowledge
of any ongoing investigation by the DOJ or the FBI, and that it
hadn't received any formal or informal request for information
from either agency.

"We take our public disclosure obligations very seriously," the
company said.  "Herbalife does not intend to make any additional
comments regarding this matter unless and until there are
material developments."

Mr. Awad's suit claims that stock prices have fallen after the
publication of a series of news stories, many prompted by
Mr. Ackman, who heads New York-based hedge fund Pershing Square
Capital Management LP which was widely reported to have taken a
$1 billion short position on the company.

Mr. Ackman alleged that Herbalife misrepresented sales figures
and sold its products at inflated prices during a talk at the
Sohn Investment Conference in 2012, the complaint said.
Following his presentation, Herbalife's stock fell more than 27
percent to $27.27, according to the suit.

The Federal Trade Commission launched its own probe into
Herbalife's business practices last month, a day after Mr. Ackman
claimed the company's structure violated direct-selling laws in
China, a country that has become increasingly important to
Herbalife's bottom line.

Mr. Ackman has been attacking Herbalife throughout the past year,
insisting that the direct-selling company is nothing more than a
pyramid scheme.  In a recent presentation on an investigation
into Herbalife's Chinese business model, he and other Pershing
Square executives said the company was breaking China's strict
regulations on direct-selling businesses and its ban on pyramid
companies.

Herbalife said roughly a month ago that it had received the FTC's
civil investigative demand, but declined to elaborate on the
probe in its short statement except to blast the "misinformation
in the marketplace" surrounding its activities.

Like Tupperware Brands Corp., Amway Corp. and Mary Kay Inc.,
Herbalife is what's known as a "multilevel marketer."  Instead of
selling directly to customers, it relies on a recruited sales
force, which buys its products and then tries to resell them for
a profit.

But several Latino organizations and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.,
urged the FTC to investigate the company's business practices,
claiming it takes advantage of investors in low-income and
minority communities.

Herbalife's distributor model is prone to abuse, according to
academics, consumer protection groups and federal regulators.  In
a landmark 1979 ruling on Amway's business model, the commission
required multilevel marketers to take protective steps such as
buying back surplus inventory and requiring sellers to hit
performance markers to get bonuses.

Herbalife has some powerful backers, including Carl Icahn, the
billionaire investor who won two Herbalife board seats in
February 2013 and upped his stake in the company to 16.5 percent.
The company has vigorously defended its business model, offering
data purporting to show that much of its product ends up in the
hands of end users.  This distinguishes it from a pyramid scheme,
which funnels money to recruiters without ever selling much of
anything to consumers, the company said in June.

Late last month, Herbalife said it had agreed to amend its
agreement with Icahn Enterprises Holdings LP in order to allow
three additional Carl Icahn-recommended nominees to be appointed
to the company's board of directors.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lionel Glancy, Michael Goldberg
and Robert Prongay of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Marc
Gross, Jeremy Lieberman and Patrick Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP.

The case is Abdul Awad v. Herbalife Ltd. et al., case number
2:14-cv-02850, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


HUDSON CITY: Enters MoU to Settle Lawsuits Over Merger With WTC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit filed against Hudson City Bancorp, Inc.
over a merger with Wilmington Trust Corporation entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the case, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Since the announcement of the Merger, 18 putative class action
complaints have been filed in the Court of Chancery, Delaware
against Hudson City Bancorp, its directors, M&T Bank Corporation,
and WTC challenging the Merger. Six putative class actions
challenging the Merger have also been filed in the Superior Court
for Bergen County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey (the "New
Jersey Court"). The lawsuits generally allege, among other
things, that the Hudson City Bancorp directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Hudson City Bancorp's public shareholders by
approving the Merger at an unfair price, that the Merger was the
product of a flawed sales process, and that Hudson City Bancorp
and M&T filed a misleading and incomplete Form S-4 with the SEC
in connection with the proposed transaction. All 24 lawsuits
seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger and
an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions
also seek an accounting of damages sustained as a result of the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of all of the actions.

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other
named defendants, and all the plaintiffs have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Actions and release the
defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
approval of the New Jersey Court. Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson
City Bancorp and M&T agreed to make available additional
information to Hudson City Bancorp shareholders. The additional
information was contained in a Supplement to the Joint Proxy
Statement filed with the SEC as an exhibit to a Current Report on
Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013. In addition, under the terms of
the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved the right to seek
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the New Jersey Court
approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Actions will
be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement will not affect the
Merger consideration to be paid to Hudson City Bancorp's
shareholders in connection with the proposed Merger. In the event
the New Jersey Court approves an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in connection with the settlement, such fees and
expenses shall be paid by Hudson City Bancorp, its successor in
interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of
the allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law.  Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Directors Named in Suit Over Jefferies Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits were filed in relation to a transaction wherein
Jefferies Group, Inc. converted into a limited liability company
(renamed Jefferies Group LLC) and became an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Leucadia National Corporation pursuant to a merger
agreement, according to Leucadia's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Seven putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
a putative class consisting of Jefferies stockholders in New York
and Delaware concerning the merger transaction whereby Jefferies
became the company's wholly-owned subsidiary. Three were filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York: (1) Howard Lasker IRA
v. Jefferies Group, Inc. et al. (Index No. 653924/2012), filed on
November 14, 2012 in New York County; (2) Lowinger v. Leucadia
National Corp. et al. (Index No. 653958/2012), filed on November
15, 2012 in New York County; and (3) Jiannaras v. Jefferies
Group, Inc., et al. (Index No. 702866/2012), filed on November
16, 2012 in Queens County. Four were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension & Retirement System v. Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8054-CS),
filed on November 21, 2012; (2) Laborers' District Council
Pension and Disability Trust Fund No. 2 et al. v. Campbell et al.
(C.A. No. 8059-CS), filed on November 26, 2012; (3) Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System v. Handler et al. (C.A. No.
8096-CS), filed on December 11, 2012; and (4) Gelfand v. Handler
et al. (C.A. No. 8228-CS), filed on January 17, 2013
(collectively, the "Actions"). The class actions, filed on behalf
of Jefferies shareholders prior to the merger, name as defendants
Jefferies, the members of the board of directors of Jefferies,
the members of the company's board of directors and, in certain
of the actions, certain merger-related subsidiaries. The Actions
seek, among other things, equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages.

The New York actions were consolidated and have been stayed
through pretrial discovery in deference to the Delaware actions,
which also have been consolidated. The consolidated Delaware
action alleges that the members of Jefferies board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
transactions by engaging in a flawed process, agreeing to sell
Jefferies for inadequate consideration pursuant to an agreement
that contains improper deal protection terms, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the merger transactions,
and further that the company aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties (the Court has since dismissed the
former Jefferies independent directors from the action). The
action also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty against Messrs.
Handler and Friedman in their capacities as officers of
Jefferies, and against Messrs. Handler, Friedman, Cumming and
Steinberg, collectively, as purported controlling shareholders of
Jefferies. The plaintiffs have moved for class certification. The
company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or to
estimate the amount of or range of any reasonably possible loss.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Consumer Suit "Sykes" Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted a stay of a consumer class action captioned Sykes v.
Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC) pending
the Court of Appeals' decision of the company's leave to appeal a
certification of the suit, according to Leucadia's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company and certain of the company's subsidiaries and
officers are named as defendants in a consumer class action
captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ.
8486 (DC), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The named defendants also include the Mel
Harris law firm, certain individuals and members associated with
the law firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of
its employees. The action arises out of the law firm's obtaining
default judgments against approximately 124,000 individuals in
New York City Civil Court with respect to consumer debt purchased
by the company's subsidiaries. The company asserted that it is an
investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer debt and
were regularly informed of the amounts received from debt
collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged
illegal debt collection activities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently obtained
the default judgments in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary
Law (alleged only as to the law firm) and seeks injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Defendants' motions to
dismiss were denied in part (including as to the claims made
against the company and the company's subsidiaries) and granted
in part (including as to certain of the claims made against the
company's officers) (the "Dismissal Decision"). In September
2012, the Court issued a decision granting plaintiffs' motion to
certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a Rule 23(b)(3) class (the
"Certification Decision"). Neither the Dismissal Decision nor the
Certification Decision addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

At a November 2012 status conference, the parties advised the
Court of their intention to attempt to resolve the dispute
through mediation. Those efforts were not successful and the
parties advised the Court. On March 28, 2013, the Court entered
its certification order, certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of "all
persons who have been or will be sued by the Mel Harris
defendants as counsel for the Leucadia defendants in actions
commenced in New York City Civil Court and where a default
judgment has or will be sought" and a Rule 23(b)(3) class of "all
persons who have been sued by the Mel Harris defendants as
counsel for the Leucadia defendants in actions commenced in New
York City Civil Court and where a default judgment has been
obtained." (the "Certification Order").

On July 19, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit granted the company's leave to appeal the District
Court's March Certification Order. In connection with the appeal,
the District Court has granted a stay of the proceedings pending
the Court of Appeals' decision. The appeal was heard on February
7, 2014.

Determinations of both the probability and the estimated amount
of loss or potential loss are judgments made in the context of
developments in the litigation. The company reviews these
developments regularly with the company's outside counsel.
Because the company determined that it would be willing to
resolve this matter with plaintiffs for $20.0 million, it accrued
a litigation reserve for this contingency in that amount. In
arriving at this reserve amount, the company considered a number
of factors, including that (i) while the damages sought are
indeterminate, payment of this reserved amount would not resolve
the case at this time, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the
outcome of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals
respecting class certification), (iii) there are significant
factual issues to be determined or resolved, (vi) relevant law is
unsettled and untested legal theories are presented, (v) the
company has numerous defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, (vi)
there are no adverse rulings by the Court on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims and (vii) several important litigation
milestones, such as the completion of discovery and the filing of
summary judgment motions, have not yet occurred.

The company also notes that the plaintiffs in the action -- the
class members certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) -- have alleged certain categories of damages under each
of the statutes underlying their claims. These damages include
(i) statutory damages, which are capped under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act at $0.5 million for the class, and (ii)
actual damages. While not fully described in the complaint, it
appears that plaintiffs' claim for actual damages includes not
only incidental costs incurred in connection with the default
judgments (including, for example, subway fares to the courthouse
and bank fees), costs relating to emotional distress and costs
related to reputational damage allegedly arising as a result of
the long-term effects of the default judgments, but also the full
amount of the debt that class members paid (whether owed or not)
following entry of the default judgments. The amount of debt
collected to date totals approximately $90.0 million. If the
plaintiffs are successful in proving their claims and in proving
actual damages, plaintiffs' damages may be subject to prejudgment
interest and trebling under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.


LULULEMON USA: Faces "New" Class Suit Alleging ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lululemon USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20589-JEM (S.D.
Fla., February 17, 2014) alleges that the Point Of Sale Devices
in the Defendant's stores throughout the United States are not
fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people
like the Plaintiff.

Lululemon USA, Inc., is a Nevada corporation incorporated
headquartered in Vancouver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          Tiffany L. Anderson, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLC
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com
                  tanderson@leoncosgrove.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Colin Thompson, Esq.
          Fredrick Howard Lebron McClure, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-2111
          Facsimile: (813) 229-1447
          E-mail: colin.thompson@dlapiper.com
                  fredrick.mcclure@dlapiper.com


MACMAHON HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Threat of Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that mining
services company Macmahon Holdings is facing a second threat of a
class action over a loss-making project that forced it to
downgrade profit forecasts by between $20 million and $40
million.

Newly established class action firm ACA Lawyers was set to
announce on April 15 that it has obtained financial backing for a
class action against Macmahon aimed at recovering losses for
shareholders it says are worth "tens of millions of dollars".

London-based Harbour Litigation Funding, which claims to be
Britain's biggest litigation funder, has agreed to finance the
prospective claim as part of a non-exclusive arrangement with
ACA.  Harbour is also financing two other ACA class actions,
against Oz Minerals and Iluka Resources.

The prospective claim against Macmahon is based on the same
allegations that were raised last year by another class action
law firm, Maurice Blackburn, which has not yet filed proceedings.

Both law firms have accused Macmahon of failing to keep the
market informed about a loss-making project in 2012 known as the
Hope Downs 4 rail earthworks and bridge construction.

A spokesman for Macmahon said on April 14 it had nothing to add
to earlier statements that it had always complied with its
continuous disclosure obligations.

Both law firms allege that Macmahon knew about the problem at
Hope Downs project for several months before informing the market
on September 19, 2012, leading to losses for those who bought
shares in that period.

Macmahon told the Australian Securities Exchange in 2012 it
became aware that its earnings guidance would need to be revised
after the market closed on Friday, September 14.  It sought a
trading halt on Sunday, September 16, and made an announcement to
the market on September 19.

ACA principal Steven Lewis said his firm's class action would
seek damages on behalf of Macmahon shareholders who acquired
shares between May 2, 2012, and September 18 that year.  He urged
shareholders to register their interest by June 15.


MBNA BANK: Settles Class Action Over Credit Card Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Shuyee Lee, writing for CJAD News, reports that two Canadian
banks have agreed to pay out $37.5-million dollars in a class
action settlement involving overcharging of credit card fees.

Consumer advocacy group Option Consommateus says they've reached
an agreement in principle with Bank of America Canada, formally
known as MBNA Bank of Canada, and Royal Bank of Canada.  The
banks agreed to the payout without admitting responsibility.

The deal is expected to be approved in court later next month.
If that happens, about one million customers are expected to get
a $12 credit in their account.

Option Consommateurs launched the class action in 2003 and it was
authorized in 2007.

They alleged that the 12 banks in question raised credit card
limits without customers' consent, that clients were not given
the usual 21-day grace period to pay fees, had to pay
miscalculated fees for going over their new limits or for cash
advances. These measures violate the Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit continues against the 10 other banks: Bank of
Montr‚al, TD Bank, Caisses Desjardins du Qu‚bec, CIBC, Scotia
Bank, Banque Nationale, Laurentienne Bank, Banque Amex du Canada,
Citibanque Canada, and Banque Le Choix du pr‚sident.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion to Dismiss RESPA "Violations" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Motions to Dismiss filed by the defendants, including MGIC
Investment Corporation, in the cases alleging violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, were denied by the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

Since December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders
and other mortgage insurers has been named as a defendant in
twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts. Seven of those cases have previously been
dismissed without any further opportunity to appeal. The
complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the lenders' captive reinsurers
received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by
those captives, thereby violating the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"). MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the
lawsuits. Following is a list of the remaining cases.

Date Filed: 12/31/2011
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PA

Date Filed: 04/05/2012
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of PA

Date Filed: 06/28/2012
Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of PA

Date Filed: 12/06/2012
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of PA

Date Filed: 01/04/2013
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PA

The Motions to Dismiss filed by the defendants, including MGIC,
in the cases originally filed April 5, 2012 and December 6, 2012,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, were denied by that District Court on February 5,
2014. The company is currently evaluating the company's options
with respect to those two cases.


MICHIGAN: Saline Teacher Joins Suit Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Saline Reporter reports that the American Civil Liberties
Union of Michigan filed a lawsuit on April 14 to guarantee that
the marriages of 300 same-sex couples performed in Michigan last
month are recognized by the state.  The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of eight same-sex couples who were married after a federal
judge struck down the state's ban and before the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals put the decision on hold.

One of those couples, Kelly and Anne Callison, of Ann Arbor, want
to be legally recognized by the state so they can jointly adopt
their 2-year-old son, Corbin.  Kelly and Anne have been together
for five years.

In a previous interview with The Saline Reporter, Kelly said
getting married would change their family completely.

"As the law stands now, I'm not able to adopt my own son," said
Kelly.

Anne, a teacher in the Saline Area Schools, said it was nerve-
wracking following the landmark case that pitted a lesbian couple
from Hazel Park against the state's attorney general office.

"It's overwhelming.  It's hard to believe it's going to stick,"
said Anne on March 22.

Just 48 hours after Kelly and Anne and 72 other individuals were
wed in the first same-sex marriages in the county, an emergency
stay filed on behalf of Attorney General Bill Schuette was
granted by the federal 6th Circuit Court.

Kelly and Anne are one two Washtenaw-area couples named as
plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Martin Contreras and Keith Orr have
been together for 28 years, and worry about the state's refusal
to recognize their marriage on health benefits and state income
taxes.

Kary L. Moss, ACLU of Michigan executive director, said the state
is obligated to recognize these marriages as a matter of law and
fairness.

"The state is obligated to extend the protections that flow from
marriage to all those who celebrated their weddings last month,"
stated Moss in a press release. "Doing anything less treats
legally married gay and lesbian couples like second-class
citizens, and adds to the confusion and instability these loving
families have endured."

On Friday, March 21, Judge Bernard Friedman struck down
Michigan's ban on the freedom to marry as violating federal law.
The next day, approximately 300 same-sex couples celebrated this
historic ruling by getting married after four county clerks
opened their offices to issue marriage licenses.

A few days after the stay was granted, Gov. Rick Snyder announced
that, while the marriages were legal, the state would not
recognize them for the purposes of providing state benefits that
are afforded to married couples.  His decision was followed by an
announcement by the federal government that it would recognize
the marriages for federal purposes.

Because of Governor Snyder's refusal to recognize the marriages
of the 300 couples, these families are precluded from enjoying
the many benefits of marriage in Michigan, including providing
health insurance to spouses, jointly adopting children, and
ensuring the financial stability of their families.

In addition to the Washtenaw-area couples, the case is brought on
behalf of:

   -- Glenna DeJong and Marsha Caspar, of Ingham County, who have
been together for 27 years and were the first same-sex couple to
get married in Michigan.

  -- Bianca Racine and Carrie Miller, of Oakland County, who have
been together for three years. Bianca is in the National Guard;
however Carrie will not be recognized as her spouse by the state
Veterans Affairs agencies.

   -- Samantha Wolf and Martha Rutledge, of Ingham County, who
have been together for two years.  Martha has ongoing health
concerns stemming from a car accident.  She would like to be
covered on her wife's health insurance.

   -- Frank Colasonti, Jr. and James Barclay Ryder, of Oakland
County, who have been together for 26 years.  Frank would like to
adjust his pension plan to provide Jim with continued survivor
benefits and health care in the event of Frank's death.

   -- James Anteau and Jared Haddock, of Oakland County, who have
been together for 16 year


MONSANTO CO: Callagy Law Firm Sued Over Class Action Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that LFR Collections
LLC, which acquired debt owed by law firm Calwell Practice PLLC,
has sued the Law Office of Sean R. Callagy to wrestle away about
$3.4 million in fees earmarked for the Callagy firm as a co-
counsel in a class action against Monsanto over dioxin exposure.

The lawsuit, filed April 7 in Bergen County Superior Court,
alleges the Callagy firm did little to no work, the co-counsel
agreement violates New Jersey's rules of professional conduct and
the fees should go toward paying down Calwell's $15 million debt.

The secured creditor also said it is not bound by a priority
agreement entered into by Calwell and the Callagy firm -- along
with Law Funder LLC, George Prussin and Stillwater Funding LLC --
to establish a litigation and fee sharing relationship because it
does not cover funds lent by the Callagy firm to pay the expenses
of the litigation and because conditions precedent to the
agreement, including the filing of monthly reports and detailed
accounting, were not met.

"Because the co-counsel agreement is void and because the
priority agreement does not cover expenses paid by the Callagy
firm, all expenses paid to the Calwell Practice from the Bibb
litigation are part of the Calwell Practice's general assets,"
the suit says. "LFR contends that as a secured creditor, it has
priority to those funds to satisfy the Calwell firm's $15,201,728
outstanding debt."

Sean Callagy, of the Callagy firm, on April 14 called LFR's
lawsuit "dead in the water" and said LFR is trying to use absurd
technical reasons to get out of paying the firm what it deserves.

According to the complaint, Calwell Practice in 2004 launched a
class action in West Virginia against Monsanto Co. and Pharmacia
Corp. -- Zina Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al. -- on behalf of
plaintiffs who alleged they were injured after inhaling dioxin
Monsanto had released by burning 2,4,5-T waste materials.

Calwell Practice borrowed funds from Law Funder, Stillwater
Asset-Backed Fund LP and George Prussin, of Law Funder, to fund
the litigation, the complaint says.  LFR says Calwell Practice
entered into sale of contingent proceeds agreements with Law
Funder in 2006 but did not grant the litigation-funding company a
security interest in any of its assets and says Law Funder did
not file a UCC financing statement in connection with the
agreements.

In 2007, Stillwater provided Calwell Practice with an $8 million
secured credit line after entering into a credit agreement,
revolving credit note, security agreement and unlimited guaranty,
LFR says, and filed a UCC financing statement against the firm's
assets, which is still in effect.  Stillwater's credit line was
increased to $11 million in 2009, according to LFR.

LFR says Calwell Practice owed $15.2 million under the credit
agreement as of April 30, 2011.

In May 2009, Calwell Practice entered into a $1 million loan
agreement with Prussin and, on the same day, entered into an
intercreditor agreement with Stillwater, Law Funder and Prussin
under which Calwell Practice would pay amounts owed to Law Funder
and Prussin before paying Stillwater, the suit says.

In May 2011, Calwell Practice entered into a co-counsel agreement
with the Callagy firm, which represented Law Funder and Prussin
in transactions with Calwell Practice, according to the
complaint.

LFR alleges that none of the class action plaintiffs consented to
the participation of the Callagy firm in the litigation and
claims the firm never filed any briefs, motions or pleadings in
the case and never appeared before the court. In addition, LFR
says the Callagy firm has no expertise in mass torts.

Under a January 2012 settlement agreement reached in January
2012, Monsanto agreed to pay $13 million in legal fees and $7
million in expenses.  LFR alleges that the Callagy firm should
not receive the approximately $3.4 million in legal fees it says
it is entitled to.

Callagy told Law360 on April 14 that LFR was 100 percent aware
that the plaintiffs did not know about the Callagy firm's
involvement and that Calwell and LFR induced Callagy to enter
into the agreement.

"We are outraged about this entire matter," Callagy said.

He said LFR sat by for two years without saying a word because it
wanted the firm to fund the litigation. The Callagy firm even
funded the appeal and watched millions of dollars go out, Callagy
said, and no one had a problem with it.

According to Callagy, LFR is just trying to find some technical
deficiency to get out of paying the firm the money it is entitled
to, which he said is at $13 million or so at this point.

The Callagy firm will be filing a countersuit of fraud claims
against LFR and Calwell Practice, the firm said.

Representatives for LFR, Law Funder and Calwell did not
immediately return a request for comment. Contact information for
Stillwater was not immediately available.

The plaintiffs are represented by Theodora McCormick --
tmccormick@sillscummis.com -- of Sills Cummis & Gross PC.

The Callagy firm is representing itself.

The case is LFR Collections LLC v. Law Office of Sean R. Callagy,
case number L-3275-14, in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division, Bergen County.


MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York is now
concluded after a confidential settlement agreement, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Two purported class action complaints were filed by purported
purchasers of the Company's securities against the Company and
certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws. The first was filed by Raphael Nach in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
July 19, 2007. The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282
Pension Trust Fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 26, 2007. Both actions
were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody's
Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. On June 27, 2008, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf
of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
February 3, 2006 through October 24, 2007. Plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements
concerning the Company's business conduct, business prospects,
business conditions and financial results relating primarily to
MIS's ratings of structured finance products including RMBS, CDO
and constant-proportion debt obligations. The plaintiffs sought
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and their
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the
case. The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint in September 2008.

On February 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion dismissing
certain claims and sustaining others. On January 22, 2010,
plaintiffs moved to certify a class of individuals who purchased
Moody's Corporation common stock between February 3, 2006 and
October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed. On March 31, 2011,
the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs' motion to certify
the proposed class. On April 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal the decision.
The Company filed its response to the petition on April 25, 2011.
On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order denying
plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. On September 14, 2012,
the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was fully
briefed on December 21, 2012. On August 23, 2013, the court
issued an opinion granting defendants' motion for summary
judgment. Judgment was entered in Moody's favor on August 26,
2013. On September 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
from the judgment and from the March 2011 decision denying class
certification. On December 19, 2013, that appeal was voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement
agreement, thereby concluding this litigation.


MOODY'S CORP: Dismissal of Claims in Abu Dhabi Bank Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two non-settling plaintiffs in a suit by Abu Dhabi Commercial
Bank against subsidiaries of Moody's Corporation filed a Notice
of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the
dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the
Court's denial of class certification, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating
agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the
fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012,
in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted
previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court,
ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss,
dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent
misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further
proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on
the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting
fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims
of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud
claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those
plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The
court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and
abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were
dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7,
2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the
claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On
February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April
24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14
plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated
to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as
against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation
on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of
two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On
May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their
claims and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class
certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total
compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue
on the appeal.


MOODY'S CORP: Lawsuit Over Rhinebridge SIV Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiffs
in a consolidated suit filed against Moody's Corporation
subsidiaries King County, Washington and Iowa Student Loan
Liquidity Corporation, stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of
the case, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa
Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially
identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other
defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG. These actions arose out of investments in
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called
Rhinebridge Plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and sought, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint
asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency
defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings
assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were
false and misleading. The case was assigned to the same judge
presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV. In April
2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants' motion to
dismiss. In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant. In January
2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that
asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach
of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the
rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a
claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after
further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs did not seek class
certification. On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a
motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims
against them. On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an order
dismissing the claim for aiding and abetting fraud against the
rating agencies but allowing the claim for fraud to proceed to
trial. In June 2012 and March 2013, respectively, defendants IKB
Deutsche Industriebank AG (and a related entity) and Fitch, Inc.
informed the court that they had executed confidential settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to a
confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiffs stipulated to
the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of all remaining claims
as against the remaining defendants, including Moody's, and the
Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013.


MOTOR CITY CARWASH: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Toumany Sidibe, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Motor City Carwash, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and
David Daszkal, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-80249-DMM (S.D.
Fla., February 17, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Company's
current and former employees similarly situated to the Plaintiff
seeking to recover overtime compensation and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Motor City Carwash, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation that
owns, operates and conducts business in Palm Beach, Florida.
David Daszkal owns, manages and operates Motor City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linette Michelle Waterman, Esq.
          WATERMAN AND WOLFE, P.A.
          2090 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 205
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 697-2644
          Facsimile: (561) 697-2647
          E-mail: waterman@watermanandwolfe.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
          1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 392-8074
          Facsimile: (561) 368-6478
          E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com


NELNET INC: Settles "Yaakov" TCPA Violation Suit v. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------
An agreement was reached to settle the suit Bais Yaakov of Spring
Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, which alleges violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to Nelnet,
Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC
("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was
filed in the U.S. federal District Court for the District of New
Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court"). The complaint alleges
that Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff
in 2008-2009 that were not the result of express invitation or
permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain
opt out language. The complaint also alleges that such faxes
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes. The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent
putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the
TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty
damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful
violations. The complaint seeks to establish a class action. On
September 13, 2013, the named plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, and on October 7, 2013, Peterson's filed a motion
to dismiss the named plaintiff's motion for class certification.
As of the filing date of this report, the New Jersey District
Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. On
January 23, 2014, Peterson's and the named plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle whereby Peterson's would, without
admitting any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the
lawsuit, including potential class action claims, for payment of
an immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is
subject to finalization and court approval.


NELNET INC: Settles "Zaw" Suit Over Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the suit Than Zaw v.
Nelnet, Inc., which alleges violation of the California Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 18, 2013, a Third Amended Complaint was served on
Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than Zaw against Nelnet
(erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as Nelnet Business
Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Contra Costa County (the "California State Court").
The lawsuit was originally instituted on December 30, 2010, and
alleges that Nelnet violated the California Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in its interactions with the plaintiff, a
California resident. The plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint
added additional allegations claiming that Nelnet violated
Section 632 of the California Penal Code by allegedly recording
one or more telephone calls to the plaintiff without the
plaintiff's consent, and sought $5,000 in statutory damages per
alleged violation. The Third Amended Complaint further alleged
that Nelnet improperly recorded telephone calls to other
California residents without such persons' consent, and sought to
establish a class action with respect to the California Section
632 claim. As of the filing date of this report, the California
State Court has not established, recognized, or certified a
class. On October 16, 2013, Nelnet and the named plaintiff
reached an agreement in principle whereby Nelnet would, without
admitting any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the
lawsuit, including potential class action claims, for payment of
an immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is
subject to finalization and court approval.


NELNET INC: Summary Judgment Bid in "Grant Keating" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio is yet to rule on a motion by defendants in the suit Grant
Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC et al. for summary judgment,
and a motion by named plaintiff for class certification,
according to Nelnet, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's,
CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on Nelnet
(collectively, the "Defendants"), in connection with a lawsuit by
Grant Keating in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court"). The
lawsuit was originally instituted on August 24, 2011, and alleges
that the Defendants sent an advertising text message to the named
plaintiff in June 2011 using an automatic telephone dialing
system, and without the plaintiff's express consent. The
complaint also alleges that this text message violated the TCPA,
purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a
willful violation. The complaint further alleges that the
Defendants sent putative class members similar text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system, without such
purported class members' consent. The complaint seeks to
establish a class action. On August 29, 2013, the Defendants
filed motions for summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed
a motion for class certification. As of the filing date of this
report, the Ohio District Court has not established, recognized,
or certified a class. The Defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously in this lawsuit.


NEW YORK, NY: Affording Housing Residents Files Suit v. HPD
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
New York City affordable housing residents filed a class action
against the city's Department of Housing Preservation and
Development in state court on April 10, challenging its practice
of "downsizing" families in Section 8 housing to smaller units
with fewer bedrooms.

HPD allegedly employs a strategy of downsizing families that are
deemed too small for the number of bedrooms in their current
apartments and forces them to move to smaller apartments,
unfairly limiting this practice to those who receive housing
subsidies in the form of Enhanced Section 8 vouchers as opposed
to all Section 8 tenants, according to the complaint.

The strategy violates the tenants' due process rights, they
claim, in part because HPD allows individual building owners and
landlords to decide which tenants are downsized.

"The aforementioned downsizing policy is arbitrary and capricious
primarily because [New York City HPD] has delegated their
responsibility of deciding who should be downsized, when the
families should be downsized, and which parts of New York City
should suffer downsizing to myriad building owners and/or
management," the complaint said.

The named plaintiffs, who live at 333 Broadway, 175 West 87th St.
and 480 Second Ave., claim they have been informed that their
families are too small for their current apartments, and are
being forced to move to units with fewer bedrooms.

They note that tenants only receive Enhanced Section 8 vouchers
when their buildings exit a federally subsidized affordable
housing program, so those who are eligible for the vouchers are
living in market-rate buildings.  Section 8 vouchers typically
limit how much the government will pay the landlord to maintain
affordable housing to a specific amount; Enhanced Section 8
vouchers, however, only limit rents to a "reasonable" amount,
which the plaintiffs argue could mean more than $4,000 per month
in some New York City neighborhoods.

If tenants subject to downsizing fail to accept an apartment
transfer, they can allegedly lose their voucher, and the
plaintiffs point out that most people eligible for the program
could not afford market-rate housing.

The suit also claims that landlords regularly give tenants only
15 days to decide whether or not to accept a downsizing transfer.

"[T]he loss of a Enhanced Section 8 voucher is not a realistic
option for an overwhelming majority of these tenants," the
complaint said.  "Thus, building owners and/or management
companies providing tenants with the option to accept or decline
the downsizing transfer is facetious at best, as transfers are
clearly mandatory."

If a tenant chooses to appeal a downsizing transfer, the transfer
will be stayed until a fair hearing can be held by HPD, according
to the complaint.

But the plaintiffs argue that they and other Section 8 tenants
cannot receive a truly fair hearing because of "the egregious
conflict of interest" caused by the arbiters of the hearing being
employed by HPD.

The issue is allegedly further skewed in HPD's favor because it
requires tenants to provide documents from "knowledgeable,
professional medical personnel" in order to be eligible for
Section 8 housing based on a medical condition, but do not have
such personnel evaluating the medical documents, according to the
complaint.

"[New York City HPD] is employing arbitrary and capricious
policies and has abused discretion, as the aforementioned
policies are administered by various building owners and/or
management companies throughout New York City," the complaint
said.

The suit seeks to stay all downsizing actions pending proof that
the alleged due process violations have been resolved.

The proposed class is represented by The Law Office of George T.
Peters PLLC.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Accord in Suit Over Facebook Beacon Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for a
writ of certiorari to parties appealing the settlement reached in
a suit filed against Overstock.Com, Inc. over its use of a
product known as Facebook Beacon, according to Nelnet, Inc.'s
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 12, 2008, the company along with seven other
defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen
other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly
in a class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to the
company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon. The
Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the
Court for approval, which would resolve the case without
requirement of financial contribution from the company. On March
17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the Court
entered an order accepting settlement. Various parties appealed
and the Federal Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the
settlement. Appealing parties petitioned for a rehearing which
the Court denied. The appealing parties petitioned the Supreme
Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was
denied November 4, 2013, concluding the case.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Woltcheck" Suit in Pennsylvania Over Lipitor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne L. Woltcheck, 246 South Lily Road, Paxinos, PA 17860 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00281-YK (M.D. Pa., February 17, 2014) is an action
for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of
the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Eleeza Johnson, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
                  vic@feazell-tighe.com
                  eleeza@feazell-tighe.com


PIONEER NATURAL: Settles Lawsuits Over Pioneer Southwest Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources Company reached settlements in lawsuits
related to the Pioneer Southwest merger, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Texas relating to
the Pioneer Southwest merger. On May 15, 2013, David Flecker, a
purported unitholder of Pioneer Southwest, filed a class action
petition on behalf of Pioneer Southwest's unitholders and a
derivative suit on behalf of Pioneer Southwest against the
Company, Pioneer USA, the General Partner and the directors of
the General Partner, in the 134th Judicial District of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Flecker Lawsuit"). A similar class action
petition and derivative suit was filed against the same
defendants on May 20, 2013, in the 160th Judicial District of
Dallas County, Texas, by purported unitholder Vipul Patel (the
"Patel Lawsuit"). On September 3, 2013, the court consolidated
the Patel Lawsuit into the Flecker Lawsuit (as consolidated, the
"Texas State Court Lawsuit"), and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated derivative and class action petition on September 5,
2013.

The Texas State Court Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
the consideration offered by the Company in the Pioneer Southwest
merger was unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a
transaction that was the result of an allegedly conflicted and
unfair process, the defendants breached their duties under
Pioneer Southwest's partnership agreement as well as the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and engaged in self-
dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director
defendants: (i) engaged in self-dealing, failed to act in good
faith toward Pioneer Southwest, and breached their duties owed to
Pioneer Southwest; (ii) failed to properly value Pioneer
Southwest and its various assets and operations and ignored or
failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of interest
arising out of the proposed transaction; and (iii) breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a
flawed merger process. The Texas State Court Lawsuit also alleges
that the Company, Pioneer USA and the General Partner aided and
abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of
fiduciary duties. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs in
the Texas State Court Lawsuit seek to have the Pioneer Southwest
merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also seek money damages and
attorneys' fees. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
the Texas State Court Lawsuit based on improper forum.

In September 2013, representatives of the plaintiffs in the Texas
State Court Lawsuit and the defendants entered into a memorandum
of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle
the claims and allegations made in the lawsuit. The Memorandum of
Understanding provided the plaintiffs with a period of
confirmatory discovery during which the plaintiffs could confirm
the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement contemplated by
the Memorandum of Understanding. As part of the consideration for
the settlement, the Merger Agreement was amended to provide for
contractual appraisal rights for the unitholders. The parties to
the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to use their reasonable
best efforts to obtain the agreement of any plaintiffs filing
similar lawsuits to become party to the Memorandum of
Understanding and the related settlement, and it is a condition
to the consummation of the final settlement that any such
plaintiffs join the settlement or such similar lawsuits otherwise
be dismissed with prejudice prior to the final approval of the
settlement.

On January 7, 2014, the defendants and representatives of the
plaintiffs in the Texas State Court Lawsuit entered into a
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). The
Stipulation of Settlement provides for a full and complete
discharge, dismissal with prejudice, settlement and release of
all claims, suits and causes of action by the plaintiffs (other
than appraisal rights under the Merger Agreement) against the
defendants and their representatives arising out of or relating
to the allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit and the
Federal Lawsuits, the Pioneer Southwest merger or any
deliberations, negotiations, disclosures, omissions, press
releases, statements or misstatements in connection therewith,
any fiduciary or other obligations in respect of the merger or
any alternative transaction or under Pioneer Southwest's
partnership agreement, or any costs and expenses associated with
settlement other than as provided in the Stipulation of
Settlement.

On January 11, 2014, the 134th Judicial District, Dallas County,
Texas (the "Court") entered a Preliminary Approval Order
providing for, among other things, the scheduling of a settlement
hearing to be held before the Court, George L. Allen, Sr. Courts
Building, 600 Commerce Street, 6th Floor West (Old), Dallas, TX
75202, on March 17, 2014, at 9:30 a.m; the certification, for
settlement purposes only, of a Class consisting of all persons
who held Pioneer Southwest common units, either of record or
beneficially, at any time during the period from and including
May 6, 2013 to and including December 17, 2013, the date of
consummation of the Pioneer Southwest merger, including any and
all of their respective successors-in-interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns, or transferees, and any person or entity acting for or
on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and specifically
including plaintiffs, but excluding defendants, their subsidiary
companies, affiliates, assigns, members of their immediate
families, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns of any such excluded person. All proceedings relating to
the allegations made in the Texas State Court Lawsuit other than
with respect to the settlement have been stayed, and the Court
entered an injunction against the commencement or prosecution of
any action by any member of the Class asserting any of the claims
subject to the settlement. There can be no assurance that a final
settlement will be approved.


PIONEER NATURAL: Tex. Lawsuits Over Merger Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding, the plaintiffs
in the Beverly Lawsuit and Shelton Lawsuit voluntarily dismissed
all claims in lawsuits against Pioneer Natural Resources Company
over the Pioneer Southwest merger, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 21, 2013, Allan H. Beverly, a purported unitholder,
filed a class action complaint against Pioneer Southwest, the
Company, Pioneer USA, MergerCo and the directors of the General
Partner in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Beverly Lawsuit"). On September 13, 2013,
Douglas Shelton, another purported unitholder, filed a class
action complaint against the same defendants in the Beverly
Lawsuit (as well as the General Partner) in the same court as the
Beverly Lawsuit (the "Shelton Lawsuit" and with the Beverly
Lawsuit, the "Federal Lawsuits"). The Beverly Lawsuit alleged
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing
to the merger by means of an unfair process and for an unfair
price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the director
defendants: (i) failed to maximize the value of Pioneer Southwest
to its public unitholders and took steps to avoid competitive
bidding; (ii) failed to properly value Pioneer Southwest; and
(iii) ignored or failed to protect against the numerous conflicts
of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Beverly
Lawsuit also alleged that the Company, Pioneer USA and MergerCo
aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported
breach of fiduciary duties. The Shelton Lawsuit made similar
allegations to the Beverly Lawsuit, specifically: (i) that the
Company, as controlling unitholder, failed to fulfill its
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger because it
purportedly could not establish that the proposed merger was the
result of a fair process that would return a fair price to the
unaffiliated unitholders of Pioneer Southwest; (ii) that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
exercise due care and diligence in connection with the proposed
merger because the proposed merger was purportedly not the result
of a fair process that will return a fair price to the
unaffiliated unitholders; and (iii) that the non-director
defendants aided and abetted the director defendants in their
purported breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in the
Federal Lawsuits sought the same remedies as the plaintiffs in
the Texas State Court Lawsuit. The representatives of the
plaintiffs in the Federal Lawsuits are also parties to the
Memorandum of Understanding. In accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding, the plaintiffs in the Beverly Lawsuit voluntarily
dismissed all claims in the lawsuit on October 15, 2013, and the
plaintiffs in the Shelton Lawsuit voluntarily dismissed all
claims in the lawsuit on October 16, 2013.


PIONEER NATURAL: "Wilson" Plaintiff Wants to be in Tex. Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
After participating in and receiving confirmatory discovery, the
plaintiff in the Wilson Action filed against Pioneer Natural
Resources Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware has informed representatives of the plaintiffs in the
Texas State Court Lawsuit that he intends to participate as a
class member in the settlement, according to the company's Feb.
27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 23, 2013, Patrick Wilson, another purported
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
unitholders against Pioneer USA, MergerCo, Pioneer Southwest, the
General Partner and the directors of the General Partner in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Wilson
Lawsuit"). The Wilson Lawsuit alleged that the director
defendants breached their purported fiduciary obligations to the
unitholders by engaging in a process that undervalued Pioneer
Southwest and which allegedly constituted gross negligence,
recklessness, willful misconduct, bad faith or knowing violations
of law. Additionally, the Wilson Lawsuit alleged that the non-
director defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duties of the director defendants. The Wilson Lawsuit
sought the same remedies as the plaintiffs in the Texas State
Court Lawsuit and the Federal Lawsuits. The plaintiff in the
Wilson Lawsuit voluntarily dismissed that action on January 2,
2014. After participating in and receiving confirmatory
discovery, the plaintiff in the Wilson Action has informed
representatives of the plaintiffs in the Texas State Court
Lawsuit that he intends to participate as a class member in the
settlement.


PLANDOME TAXI: Judge Trims Claims in Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on April 14 trimmed overtime and state minimum wage
claims from a putative employment class action against Plandome
Taxi Inc., citing state and federal laws that exclude taxicab
drivers from some labor protections.

But U.S. Senior District Judge Denis R. Hurley's ruling left
alive claims by plaintiff Joseph Arena that Plandome violated
federal minimum wage laws and wrongfully withheld wages from
drivers in the form of taxes and mandatory fees.

The judge's decision on Plandome's motion for summary judgment
eliminated the majority of the claims against the company, but
called into question its practice of taking taxes and fees from
its drivers.

Arena filed the class action in 2012, alleging the taxi company
violated state and federal minimum wage laws by paying him $300
for 60-hour workweeks and denied him compensation for overtime.
Arena also claimed the company made him pay for gasoline, further
reducing his wages, and wrongfully deducted taxes and $14 per
workday in additional fees from his paychecks without his
permission.

Plandome filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that state
and federal laws exempt taxicab drivers from overtime pay, and
that the drivers are not considered employees under New York
labor laws.  Plandome further argued that Arena was an
independent contractor not eligible for Fair Labor Standards Act
protections, and contended that it paid Arena more than minimum
wage.

Judge Hurley on April 14 agreed with Plandome that as a taxicab
driver, Arena was not entitled to pursue his state overtime and
minimum wage law claims.

But the judge ruled that Arena's employment status with the
company under federal law was a triable issue.  Judge Hurley
rejected the company's argument against Arena's Fair Labor
Standards Act minimum wage claim, finding that the company may
not have accounted for additional expenses it passed along to
drivers.

Judge Hurley also ruled that the company's practice of taking
fees out of drivers' wages without permission may be unlawful,
constituting conversion. Arena alleged that Plandrome improperly
deducted fees for radio service, the dispatch center and a "dent
fund".

Judge Hurley found that those costs and other mandatory expenses
may have dropped the drivers' effective compensation below
minimum wage.

"Defendants have not presented evidence that [Arena] authorized
the deduction of 'car insurance premiums' or 'taxes' from his
wages," Judge Hurley wrote.

It was also unclear how the collected taxes and fees were used,
the judge wrote.

Arena worked for Plandome from Aug. 9, 2011, to Nov. 10, 2011. He
drove a company-provided vehicle and received half of the fare,
minus taxes and $14 in other fees daily, according to court
documents.

Joseph Arena is represented by David H. Rosenberg, Bryan Arbeit
and Jeffery K. Brown of Leeds Brown Law PC.

Plandome Taxi Inc. is represented by David S. Feather of the Law
Offices of David S. Feather.

The case is Joseph Arena et al. v. Plandome Taxi Inc. et al, case
number 2:12-cv-01078 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.


PNM RESOURCES: Still Involved in Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc. continues to participate in the Navajo Nation
Allottee Matters in order to preserve its interests regarding any
PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal against a
dismissal of the case, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members
of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and
allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees
with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in
trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-
of-way or both.  In March 2010, the court ordered that the
entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not
grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that
they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative
remedies before seeking redress in federal court.  In May 2010,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director.
In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision
to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of
Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on August 20,
2013, that board issued a decision upholding the Regional
Director's decision that the allottees had failed to perfect
their appeals, and dismissed the allottees' appeals, without
prejudice.  The allottees have not refiled their appeals. PNM
continues to participate in this matter in order to preserve its
interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in
the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or
the range of potential outcomes at this time.


RADIAN GROUP: "Samp" Plaintiffs Abandon Appeal v. Nixing of Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., of
which Radian Group Inc. is named a defendant, voluntarily
abandoned their appeal against the dismissal of the case,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

The company is named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the company's
captive reinsurance agreements violate Real Estate Settlement
Procedures ActRESPA. On December 9, 2011, an action titled Samp
v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the "Samp case"), was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its affiliates
(collectively, "JPMorgan"), and several mortgage insurers,
including Radian Guaranty. The plaintiffs purport to represent a
class of borrowers whose loans allegedly were referred to
mortgage insurers by JPMorgan in exchange for reinsurance
agreements between the mortgage insurers and JPMorgan's captive
reinsurer. Plaintiffs assert violations of RESPA. On October 4,
2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss on a number of
grounds, and on May 7, 2013, the court granted the motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The court ruled
that the plaintiffs could not state a claim against Radian
Guaranty because it did not insure their loans, and, in addition,
ruled that their claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. On June 5, 2013, plaintiffs appealed these rulings
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November
9, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal.


RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Unit Moves to Dismiss "White v. PNC"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint in the suit White v. PNC Financial Services
Group pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, according to Radian Group Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA titled
White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
September 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In
this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan of one of the
plaintiffs. On November 26, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of
limitations. On June 20, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on July 5, 2013, reasserting
a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same
allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 22, 2013.


RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Unit Loses Bid to Junk "Menichino" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denied Radian Guaranty's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint in Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al.,
according to Radian Group Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Radian Guaranty was not named as a defendant in the original
complaint. On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs amended their
complaint to add Radian Guaranty as an additional defendant. In
this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan of one of the
plaintiffs. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty filed a motion
to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the statute of
limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013,
reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the
same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The
court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on February 4, 2014,
without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the
statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment.


RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Unit Loses Bid to Dismiss "Manners" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denied a motion by Radian Guaranty to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint in Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.,
according to Radian Group Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On
September 28, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
three borrowers whose loans were insured by Radian Guaranty. On
November 28, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013,
the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed
plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on August 16, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under
RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on
September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on
February 5, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability
to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary
judgment.


RADIAN GROUP: Guaranty Dismissed From "Cunningham" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank
Corporation, et al. voluntarily dismissed Radian Guaranty from
the case, according to Radian Group Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 28, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled
Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al. was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
On October 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
which they added one borrower whose loan was insured by Radian
Guaranty. On December 10, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations, and
on February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss. On October 30, 2013, the court denied that
motion and ordered a brief period of discovery limited to the
statute of limitations issue. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed Radian Guaranty from this lawsuit.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company is now in the discovery phase, as to both class
certification and the merits of the case, according to Realogy
Holdings Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees. The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has
violated several sections of the California Labor Code including
one for failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class
for business related expenses and a second for failing to keep
proper records. The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair
Business Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit
of the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and
longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking
to dismiss the amended complaint. The Demurrer asserted that the
claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under
California law because the California Business and Professions
Code sets out the applicable three-part test for classification
of real estate sales associates -- as independent contractors --
and all elements of the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the
affiliated sales associates. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on
August 12, 2013 and a hearing was held on August 28, 2013. The
Court denied the Demurrer and stated that it would look to the
more complex multi-factor common law test to determine whether
the plaintiff was misclassified. CBRBC filed a Petition for a
Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeals seeking its
discretionary review of that decision on September 30, 2013 and
on November 8, 2013, the Court of Appeal denied the Petition.

The case is now in the discovery phase, as to both class
certification and the merits of the case. The Court also has
conducted a hearing concerning the validity, for purposes of the
case, of arbitration clauses in independent contractor agreements
executed by purported members of the class following the
commencement of the litigation. In connection with the state of
discovery, the Court may soon direct the parties -- consistent
with practices in California class actions -- to mail notices to
purported class members notifying them of the case and seeking
consent to provide their contact information to Plaintiff's
counsel.


REGENCY ENERGY: Enters Accord to Settle Suits Over PVR Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP entered into a settlement agreement in
lawsuits challenging the PVR Partners, L.P. Acquisition,
according to Regency's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the PVR
Acquisition are currently pending. All of the cases name PVR, PVR
GP and the current directors of PVR GP, as well as the
Partnership and the General Partner (collectively, the "Regency
Defendants"), as defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been
brought by a purported unitholder of PVR, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of
PVR. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the
directors of PVR GP breached their fiduciary duties to
unitholders of PVR, that PVR GP, PVR and the Regency Defendants
aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP in the alleged breach
of these fiduciary duties, and, as to the actions in federal
court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP, and the directors of PVR
GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief, (ii)
disclosure of certain additional information concerning the
transaction, (iii) in the event the merger is consummated,
rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iv) an award of
plaintiffs' costs and (v) the accounting for damages allegedly
causes by the defendants to these actions, and, (iv) such further
relief as the court deems just and proper. The styles of the
pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v. PVR Partners,
L.P., et al. (Case No. 9015-VCL) in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al.
(Case No. 2013-10606) and Saul Srour v. PVR Partners, L.P., et
al. (Case No. 2013-011015), each pending in the Court of Common
Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen Bushansky v. PVR
Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-cv-06829-HB); and Mark
Hinnau v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-cv-07496-HB),
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and
Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs
agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled
Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement
agreement, subject to customary conditions, including
consummation of the PVR Acquisition, completion of certain
confirmatory discovery, class certification and final approval by
the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania. If
the Court approves the settlement, the Settled Lawsuits will be
dismissed with prejudice and all defendants will be released from
any and all claims relating to the Settled Lawsuits.

The settlement will not affect any provisions of the merger
agreement or the form or amount of consideration to be received
by PVR unitholders in the PVR Acquisition.


SAL-MARK SERVICES: Deprives Workers of Lawful Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Strozier, for herself and other similarly situated v.
Sal-Mark Services, LLC d/b/a Home by Choice, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00019-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., February 17, 2014) seeks to remedy the
Defendant's alleged wide-spread and pervasive violations of the
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which have
deprived the Plaintiff, as well as others similarly situated, of
their lawful wages.

Sal-Mark Services, LLC, doing business as Home by Choice, is a
corporation conducting business in Gainesville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Massey, Esq.
          MASSEY & DUFFY, L.L.C.
          855 E. Univ. Ave.
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 505-8900
          Facsimile: (352) 414-5488
          E-mail: Massey@352law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna Maria Griffin, Esq.
          SUAREZ GRIFFIN PL - TAMPA FL
          14115 Stilton St.
          Tampa, FL 33626
          Telephone: (813) 433-9003
          Facsimile: (813) 287-5757
          E-mail: donna@suarezgriffin.com


SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles Lawsuit Against Eden Memorial Park
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International entered a settlement in the
lawsuit Robert Scott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al., according to
Service's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On February 27, 2014, Service Corporation International (the
"Company") announced a settlement of the lawsuit involving, among
others, the company's cemetery Eden Memorial Park. In the
discussion of the lawsuit in the company's recently filed Form
10-K, the lawsuit is styled Robert Scott, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park,
et al. (previously styled F. Charles Sands, et al. v. Eden
Memorial Park, et al.) Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles -
Central District. This case involves an alleged class action for
burial practice claims regarding the cemetery.

On February 27, 2014, the trial court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement executed by the parties to the case. All
claims under the lawsuit will be released if final court approval
of the settlement is obtained. The terms of the settlement call
for the establishment of a settlement fund of $35,250,000, to
which various SCI insurance carriers will contribute $25,250,000
and the Company will contribute the balance. Other provisions
call for, among other things, the Company to contribute up to
$250,000 toward claims administration costs and take certain
actions in performing future burials. In addition, the Company
reserves the right to cancel the settlement in the event a
certain number of class members opt out of the settlement. The
settlement of this matter will result in a one-time charge of
$10.25 million, net of insurance recoveries, which will be
reflected as a Corporate General & Administrative expense in the
company's first quarter Statement of Operations.


SILVER SPRING: Certification Motion in "Edwards" Suit Denied Anew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County
denied the revised class certification motion in Edwards v.
Silver Spring Networks, according to Silver Spring Networks,
Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company was named in a lawsuit filed in September 2010 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County
(Edwards v. Silver Spring Networks). The lawsuit claims to be a
"class action" on behalf of California consumers, and alleges
that smart meters are defective and generate incorrect bills. The
company filed a motion to dismiss this case and, in September
2011, the San Mateo Superior Court granted the company's motion
without leave to amend as to two of the plaintiffs' causes of
action and with leave to amend as to a third claim. In February
2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which the
company filed an answer denying the plaintiffs' allegations in
May 2012. In August 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, and in September 2012, the company filed a demurrer to
one of the two claims asserted in the second amended complaint,
which was overruled by the court. In November 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, for which a
hearing was held in January 2013. In April 2013, the court denied
the class certification motion without prejudice, but allowed the
plaintiffs to file a revised class certification motion, which
the plaintiffs filed in June 2013. A hearing on the revised class
certification motion was held in September 2013, and the court
denied the revised class certification motion in December 2013.
The company intends to continue vigorously defending against the
action.


SMARTHEALTH INC: Sends Unsolicited Facsimiles, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carradine Chiropractic Center, Inc., an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. SmartHealth, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00342-BYP (N.D. Ohio, February 17, 2014) challenges
the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.

Carradine Chiropractic Center, Inc., is an Ohio corporation.

SmartHealth, Inc., is an Arizona corporation operating under the
trade name, SmartPractice, with its principal place of business
in Phoenix, Arizona.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
          36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
          E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
                  mstubbs@mrjlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay E. Krasovec, Esq.
          H. Alan Rothenbuecher, Esq.
          ICE MILLER - CLEVELAND
          600 Superior Avenue, E, Suite 1701
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-6501
          Facsimile: (216) 621-6502
          E-mail: Jay.Krasovec@icemiller.com
                  Alan.Rothenbuecher@icemiller.com

               - and -

          Allen C. Schlinsog, Jr., Esq.
          Colleen E. Fielkow, Esq.
          REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN - MILWAUKEE
          1000 North Water Street, Suite 2100
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 298-1000
          E-mail: aschlinsog@reinhartlaw.com
                  cfielkow@reinhartlaw.com


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Millennium Funds Suit Accord Awaits Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York is yet to approve a settlement reached on behalf of a
putative class of investors in the Millennium Funds included in
the U.S. Class Action, according to SS&C Technologies Holdings,
Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Several actions, which the company refers to as the Millennium
Actions, have been filed in various jurisdictions against GlobeOp
alleging claims and damages with respect to a valuation agent
services agreement performed by GlobeOp for the Millennium Global
Emerging Credit Fund, L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging Credit
Fund Ltd., which the company refers to collectively as the
Millennium Funds. These actions include (i) a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, or the U.S. Class Action, on behalf of a putative class
of investors in the Millennium Funds filed in May 2012 asserting
claims of $844 million (the alleged aggregate value of assets
under management by the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak
valuation); (ii) an arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom,
or the UK Arbitration, on behalf of Millennium Global Investments
Ltd. and Millennium Asset Management Ltd., the Millennium Funds'
investment manager and administrative manager, respectively, or
the Millennium Managers, which commenced with a request for
arbitration in July 2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million
for sums paid by way of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a
separate arbitration to which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as
an indemnity for any losses that may be incurred by the
Millennium Managers in the U.S. Class Action; and (iii) a claim
in the same arbitration proceeding by the liquidators on behalf
of the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd., or the
Master Fund, against GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess
of $160 million. These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its
contractual obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of
care in the performance of services for the Millennium Fund and
that, inter alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a
fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed
by the investment manager. The U.S. Class Action also asserts
claims against SS&C identical to the claims against GlobeOp in
that action. In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted
counterclaims against both the Millennium Managers and the Master
Fund for indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. Class
Action.

A hearing on the merits of the claims asserted in the UK
arbitration was conducted in London in July and August 2013. The
hearing has been adjourned and is not expected to be reconvened
until September 2014.

GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides
reimbursement of various litigation costs up to pre-determined
limits. In 2012 and 2013, GlobeOp was reimbursed for litigation
costs under the applicable insurance policy.

In January 2014, GlobeOp, SS&C, the Millennium Managers and the
plaintiff in the U.S. Class Action entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the
parties (including a separate mutual release between and among
GlobeOp and SS&C, on the one hand, and the Millennium Managers on
the other). The parties have presented the settlement agreement
for approval by the United States District Court of the Southern
District of New York. As part of the settlement, GlobeOp and the
Millennium Managers have agreed to withdraw their claims against
each other in the UK Arbitration upon approval of the settlement
agreement by the United States District Court. Pending that
approval, the UK Arbitration has been stayed in relation to the
claims between Millenium and GlobeOp. The settlement agreement
does not affect the claims, counterclaims and/or defenses as
between GlobeOp and the Master Fund.

GlobeOp's insurers have agreed to fund the entirety of the
settlement amount contemplated to be contributed by GlobeOp.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The
Company believes that it has strong defenses in the U.S. Class
Action and the UK Arbitration and is vigorously contesting the UK
Arbitration (the U.S. Class Action is subject of a pending
settlement agreement). The amount of any potential loss, if any
at all, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: GlobeOp Seeks to Appeal Certification Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
GlobeOp Financial Services S.A. petitioned the Court of Appeals
to permit an interlocutory appeal of the class certification
order in a suit filed by Pasha S. Anwar in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, but
subsequently requested that the Court of Appeals hold its
petition in abeyance pending the consummation of a settlement,
according to SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2009, GlobeOp was named as a defendant in a putative
class action, which the company refers to as the Anwar Action,
filed by Pasha S. Anwar in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against multiple defendants
relating to Greenwich Sentry L.P. and Greenwich Sentry Partners
L.P., or the FG Funds, and the alleged losses sustained by the FG
Funds' investors as a result of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duties by GlobeOp and
negligence in the performance of its duties and sought to recover
as damages the net losses sustained by investors in the putative
class, together with applicable interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees. GlobeOp served as administrator for the Greenwich Sentry
fund from October 2003 through August 2006 and for the Greenwich
Sentry Partners fund from May 2006 through August 2006, during
which time the approximate net asset value of the Greenwich
Sentry Fund was $135 million and the Greenwich Sentry Partners
Fund was $6 million. In February 2013, the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification of a class consisting of all net
loss investors in the litigated funds (excluding investors from a
number of enumerated foreign countries). GlobeOp petitioned the
Court of Appeals to permit an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order, but subsequently requested that the Court of
Appeals hold its petition in abeyance pending the consummation of
a settlement.


STERICYLE INC: Denies Allegations of Illegal Price Increases
------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. filed an answer denying allegations contained in
the Amended Consolidated Multi-district Litigation filed by
customers complaining over alleged unauthorized or excessive
price increases, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company was served on March 12, 2013 with a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself
and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of
ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other
charges on the company's customers in breach of the company's
contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought
certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to
class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out
of a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal
False Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed
under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The
complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states
and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, the company
filed the company's answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended
Complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Also, as
previously disclosed, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and
North Carolina have issued civil investigative demands to explore
the allegations made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but
have not yet decided whether to join the Illinois action.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
the company was served with class action complaints filed in
federal court in California, Florida, Illinois and Utah and in
state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to the company's settlement with the
State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the company's Motion to
Transfer these related actions to the Northern District of
Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings. On December 10,
2013, the company filed the company's answer to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action, generally
denying the allegations therein.


SUBWAY RNR: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wage to Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pernella Russell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Subway RNR, Inc., a Florida corporation,
and Nancy Garofolo, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-80250-KLR
(S.D. Fla., February 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff at a rate equal to the federal minimum
wage requirement for work performed while employed by the
Defendants.

Subway RNR, Inc., is a Florida corporation.  Nancy Garofolo is a
resident of Florida, who owned and operated Subway, where the
Plaintiff was employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


SUNRISE COMMUNITY: Faces "Millanes" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joann Millanes, Shalonda Love, Maria Roldan, Barbara Ortega,
Guirlene Bastien, Lucero Lopez, Nathalie Francoeur and other
similarly situated individuals v. Sunrise Community, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-20591-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
February 17, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Sunrise Community, Inc., is a Florida Corporation, having its
main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the
Plaintiffs worked.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (305) 652-5859
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Neil Andresky, Esq.
          THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          9121 N. Lake Park Circle
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 348-4546
          Facsimile: (954) 342-1988
          E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com


SUNSOF INC: Class Seeks to Recover Money Damages for Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roder D. Laffita, Elida D. Nieves, Jose Antonio Baide, Rene
Rivero, and Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. Sunsof, Inc.
and Edgardo D. Armando, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20592-KMW
(S.D. Fla., February 17, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid wages under the laws of the United States.

Sunsof, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation.  Edgardo D. Armando
is a resident of Florida.  The Defendants conduct business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs worked.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Neil Andresky, Esq.
          THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          9121 N. Lake Park Circle
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 348-4546
          Facsimile: (954) 342-1988
          E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elaine W. Keyser, Esq.
          Jonathan Alan Beckerman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: ekeyser@littler.com
                  jabeckerman@littler.com


TAMPA, FL: USEP Files Class Action Over PLC Meetings
----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Solochek, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that
fresh off a complaint to the state over planning time and
"professional learning communities," the United School Employees
of Pasco has filed a class-action grievance regarding the same
issues with the superintendent's office.  The charge is signed by
933 teachers district-wide, or just less than one-fifth of the
instructional staff.  They allege that the district has violated
their contractual rights in requiring "onerous and lengthy" PLC
meetings interfere with planning time.  The USEP claims that the
meetings exceed 40 minutes agreed to in the contract, and that
they adversely affect their ability to meet students' daily
academic needs.

For relief, the union asks for an end to the current form of PLC
meetings, and for compensation for work done outside the
contractual school day, among other things.

Superintendent Kurt Browning has remained steadfast that the
district has not violated its teacher contract with its
professional learning communities.  District spokeswoman Linda
Cobbe added that Browning is looking into asking the USEP to
focus on its complaint with the state, which is set for an April
28 hearing, or the grievance, which is similar.


TECO ENERGY: Dismissal of Suit v. PGS Now Final, Non-appealable
---------------------------------------------------------------
The order of the Lee County Circuit Court, Florida to deny
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to deny underlying
claim against Peoples Gas System is now final and not appealable,
according to TECO Energy, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In November 2010, heavy equipment operated at a road construction
site being conducted by Posen Construction, Inc. struck a natural
gas line causing a rupture and ignition of the gas and an outage
in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties, Florida.
In December 2010, two commercial PGS customers filed a purported
class action in Lee County Circuit Court, Florida against PGS on
behalf of PGS commercial customers affected by the outage,
seeking damages for loss of revenue and other costs related to
the gas outage. Posen Construction, Inc., the company conducting
construction at the site where the incident occurred, is also a
defendant in the action. In June 2013, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismissed the
plaintiffs' underlying claim against PGS. The Court's order is
now final and not appealable. PGS filed suit in April 2011
against Posen Construction, Inc. in Federal Court for the Middle
District of Florida to recover damages for repair and restoration
relating to the incident and Posen Construction, Inc. counter-
claimed against PGS alleging negligence. In the first quarter of
2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that
resolves the claims of the parties. In addition, the suit filed
in November 2011 by the Posen Construction, Inc. employee
operating the heavy equipment involved in the incident in Lee
County Circuit Court against PGS, Posen Construction, Inc. and a
PGS contractor involved in the project, seeking damages for his
injuries, also remains pending.


US AIRWAYS: Fleet Service Workers File Labor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a California labor lawsuit has all the makings of a showdown
between the enforceability of California labor code and protocol
governing the airline industry, including collective bargaining.
The class-action lawsuit that results will go far in determining
which camp has the most clout and wields the bigger stick.

At issue are allegations made by unionized fleet service workers
employed at San Francisco International Airport by US Airways
Inc. (US Airways).  In a complaint certified as a class-action
lawsuit April 4 by a California federal judge, some 554 full- and
part-time fleet service workers allege they have been stiffed out
of overtime pay and meal breaks by their employer.  According to
California labor code, workers are legally entitled to meal
breaks and overtime pay.

The airline, however, argues that provisions in the Railway Labor
Act, under which contracts and collective bargaining agreements
are negotiated with the International Association of Machinist
and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) union, trump state labor statutes.
Together with an interpretation of California labor and
employment law that US Airways claims exempts a so-called shift
trade policy from overtime obligations under the federal labor
code, the defendant held that class-action status should not be
granted.

However, US District Judge Charles R. Breyer aligned with the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The fleet service workers are responsible for the loading and
off-loading of planes, de-icing tasks, and establishing ramps to
the aircraft.  Collective bargaining agreements set out when meal
breaks are taken and when overtime is paid, according to the
unique demands of an industry that puts a great deal of
importance on the timeliness of scheduled flights at a busy
airport.  There are also provisions for shift swaps, so-called
"pick-up" shifts, and other provisions unique to the airline
industry.

However, as the workers perform their tasks in the state of
California, California and labor law comes into play.  Lead
plaintiffs in the class action, Joseph Timbang Angeles and
Noe Lastimosa, contend that members of the class have been
stiffed from overtime and have also worked off the clock by way
of various pre-shift and post-shift activities.

The defendants claim that any employee who clocks in a few
minutes earlier than his or her established start time, and/or
clocks out a few minutes beyond the normal end of his or her
shift, is not necessarily performing work.

Percolating in the background is the ongoing need to ensure a
plane is ready to go and a flight is allowed to leave on time.
Were a worker to forego a rest or meal period in order to ensure
a plane is readied on schedule, is that meal period made up
later? Is there a wage provision to compensate for missed meal
periods?

US Airways holds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal
airline labor laws.  The plaintiffs disagree, and their
California labor lawsuit -- filed in November 2012 -- will now
move forward as a class action.  The case is Angeles et al. v. US
Airways Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-05860, US District Court for the
Northern District of California.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Enters MoU in Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle suits alleging gender discrimination of
sales employees, according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September, 2011, Medicis received a demand letter from counsel
purporting to represent a class of female sales employees
alleging gender discrimination in, among others things,
compensation and promotion as well as claims that the former
management group maintained a work environment that was hostile
and offensive to female sales employees. Related charges of
discrimination were filed prior to the end of 2011 by six former
female sales employees with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the "EEOC"). Three of those charges have been
dismissed by the EEOC and the EEOC has made no findings of
discrimination. Medicis engaged in mediation with such former
employees. On March 19, 2013, Medicis and counsel for the former
employees signed an MOU to settle this matter on a class-wide
basis and resolve all claims with respect thereto. In connection
with the agreed-upon settlement, Medicis would pay a specified
sum and would pay the costs of the claims administration up to an
agreed-upon fixed amount. Medicis would also implement certain
specified programmatic relief. The parties have signed a
definitive settlement agreement in this matter. On September 5,
2013, a putative class action was filed in U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia in the matter of Brown et al. v.
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (No. 1:13-cv-01345-RJL) based
on the same allegations. Simultaneously with the filing of the
Complaint, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement.  Among other things, the settlement
agreement, if approved, will resolve all of the remaining related
EEOC charges. No hearing on the motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement has been set.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settles 629 Suits Over MoistureLoc
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated has settled approximately 629
cases in connection with MoistureLoc product liability suits,
according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s Feb.
28, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Currently, B&L has been served or is aware that it has been named
as a defendant in approximately 324 currently active product
liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a
New York State Consolidated Proceeding as well as certain other
U.S. state courts on behalf of individuals who claim they
suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens
solution with MoistureLoc. Two consolidated cases were
established to handle MoistureLoc claims. First, on August 14,
2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
created a coordinated proceeding in the Federal District Court
for the District of South Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007,
the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the
consolidation of cases filed in New York State, and assigned the
coordination responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County. There are approximately 320
currently active non-fusarium cases pending in the New York
Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009, the New York State
Supreme Court overseeing the New York Consolidated Proceeding
granted B&L's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation
testimony with regard to non-fusarium infections, which
effectively excluded plaintiffs from testifying that MoistureLoc
caused non-fusarium infections. On September 15, 2011, the New
York State Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the
Trial Court's ruling. On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of
Appeals denied plaintiffs' additional appeal. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial court's ruling,
and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all
remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied
Plaintiffs' motion to renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary
judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June
28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial
Court's ruling. A scheduling order for briefs and oral argument
has not been issued by the court yet.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina
have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal
injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of
consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing
a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc.

Currently B&L has settled approximately 629 cases in connection
with MoistureLoc product liability suits. All but one U.S. based
fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are less than
five active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of the
United States that remain pending. The parties in these active
matters are involved in settlement discussions.


VIVUS INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a
securities suit against Vivus, Inc. is complete, and the parties
are awaiting word on whether the Court of Appeals wishes to
entertain oral argument, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company and two of its officers were defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California. The action, filed in November 2010,
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,
for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The Court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's Amended Class
Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by
order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with
prejudice, and final judgment was entered for defendants the same
day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the
appeal is complete, and the parties are awaiting word on whether
the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oral argument.


W.R. GRACE: Lawsuit Over Reorganization Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action alleging that the 1996 reorganization
involving a predecessor of W. R. Grace & Co. and Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation have been
dismissed with prejudice under the Joint Plan of Reorganization
of W. R. Grace and the Fresenius settlement and the Sealed Air
settlement, according to W. R. Grace's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In September 2000, Grace was named in a purported class action
suit filed in California Superior Court for the County of San
Francisco alleging that the 1996 reorganization involving a
predecessor of Grace and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
and the 1998 reorganization involving a predecessor of Grace and
Sealed Air Corporation were fraudulent transfers (Abner, et al.,
v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al.). The suit is alleged to have been
brought on behalf of all individuals who then had lawsuits on
file asserting personal injury or wrongful death claims against
any of the defendants. After Abner, and prior to the Chapter 11
filing, two other similar class actions were filed. These
lawsuits had been stayed as a result of Grace's Chapter 11
filing. The Bankruptcy Court authorized the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Official Committee of
Asbestos Property Damage Claimants to proceed with claims against
Sealed Air and Fresenius on behalf of Grace's bankruptcy estate.
In November 2002, Sealed Air and Fresenius each announced that
they had reached agreements in principle with these committees to
settle asbestos, successor liability and fraudulent transfer
claims related to such transactions. On the Effective Date, under
the terms of the Joint Plan and the Fresenius settlement and the
Sealed Air settlement, Fresenius and Cryovac, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Sealed Air, made payments to the asbestos
trusts. Under the terms of the Joint Plan and the settlement
agreements, the class action lawsuits have been dismissed with
prejudice.


W.R. GRACE: Asbestos Property Damage Claims Now in PD Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------
All WRG Asbestos PD Claims have been channeled to the WRG
Asbestos PD Trust for resolution, according to W. R. Grace &
Co.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Several class action lawsuits also were filed on behalf of
homeowners alleging damage from Zonolite Attic Insulation
("ZAI"), a former Grace attic insulation product. Based on
Grace's investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits,
and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others,
Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its
intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human health.
The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on
the safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy Court issued
an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated
with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed,
there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

At Grace's request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date and, as of
December 31, 2013, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed.

In 2008 and 2009, Grace entered into settlement agreements with
representatives of the U.S. ZAI PD claimants and Canadian ZAI PD
claimants, respectively. The terms of these settlements have been
incorporated into the terms of the Joint Plan and related
documents.

All PD Claims have been channeled to the PD Trust for resolution.
The PD Trust contains two accounts, the PD Account and the ZAI PD
Account. U.S. ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from the ZAI PD
Account and non-ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from the PD Account.
Canadian ZAI PD Claims are to be paid by a separate fund
established in Canada. Each account has a separate trustee and
the assets of the accounts may not be commingled.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Fla. Court Dismisses "Cummings" Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida dismissed the action Cummings, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al., 8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM
without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 24, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned
Cummings, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al.,
8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM. The complaint asserted federal securities
law claims against the Company and the individual defendants
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Additional claims were asserted against
the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint alleged that between May 9, 2012 and June 6,
2013 the Company and the individual defendants made material
misstatements or omissions about the integrity of the Company's
financial reporting, including the reporting of expenses
associated with certain financing transactions, and the
liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS. The
complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals
or entities which purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities from May 9, 2012 through June 6, 2013. On October 2,
2013, the plaintiff in the action filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice. On October 3, 2013, the Court
dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to
close the case.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Suit Over Mismanaged Investors' Collateral
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris and Beth Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Wells Fargo & Co. settled a lawsuit over claims it
mismanaged institutional investors' collateral received as part
of its securities lending program, lawyers for both sides told a
judge as a trial was close to starting.

Three union retirement plans sued the lender in 2010.  Jury
selection was scheduled to start on April 15 in St. Paul,
Minnesota, when the attorneys instead announced publicly before
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank that they'd reached an accord.
The terms weren't disclosed.

The trial would have been the third for San Francisco-based Wells
Fargo over its program of temporarily lending an institutional
investor's holdings to a third party in exchange for collateral
that the bank invests with the objective of producing a profit
for its client.

The bank lost a $30.1 million jury verdict in 2010 then won a
trial over an $8.2 million claim last year.

"As we informed you this weekend, the parties have reached a
resolution," plaintiffs' attorney Peter Binkow told the judge on
April 15.

Judge Frank scheduled a June 5 hearing at which the parties will
present a detailed settlement proposal to him for preliminary
approval.

The retirement plans accused Wells Fargo of breaking its promise
to protect the collateral by investing it instead in asset-backed
and mortgage-backed securities as well as two structured
investment vehicles that later defaulted on their debts.

                         Bank Statement

The bank restated its denial of those allegations on April 15 in
a statement, saying its approach actually minimized losses.

"Wells Fargo was focused at all times on serving our clients'
interests, and we worked very hard and responsibly to achieve the
best results for all of the participants in the program during
very difficult economic conditions," Peggy Gunn, a bank
spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed message.

The case is City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System
v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 10-cv-04372, U.S. District Court,
District of Minnesota (St. Paul).


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Dismissal of Stock Suit Over Bone Graft On Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has not yet issued its decision on the
plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of a securities case
against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. officers and directors over
its Augment Bone Graft, according to Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 6, 2011, a purported federal securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against BioMimetic Therapeutics,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging
BioMimetic was unduly positive in its public statements about the
prospects for FDA approval of Augment Bone Graft. The company
acquired BioMimetic in March 2013. In January 2013, the Court
granted BioMimetic's, and the other named defendants', motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, known as Paula Kuyat, et. al. versus
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. et. al., without leave to amend the
complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter Judgment or
Amend Order and Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, seeking
reconsideration of the Court's dismissal decision. This motion
was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's
dismissal of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
December 4, 2013. The Court of Appeals has not yet issued its
decision on the plaintiff's appeal.


* Class Action Spending to Continue to Rise, Survey Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Companies reported an increase in their annual class action
spending of 12 percent from 2012 to 2013, with nearly 25 percent
anticipating that their spending will continue to rise this year
according to Carlton Fields Jorden Burt's 2014 Class Action
Survey.  Consistent with this trend, corporate counsel reported a
rise in 'high risk/bet-the-company' matters compared to more
routine matters -- up from six percent to more than 11 percent.

"The significant growth over the past two years of 'high-
risk/bet-the-company' cases increases corporate counsel spending
and makes winning, as opposed to the cost of defense, their
number one priority," said Chris Coutroulis, co-chair of Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt's National Class Action practice.

Corporate counsel also expect an onslaught of new class action
litigation related to data privacy and security, with 24 percent
reporting this hot area will present the greatest challenge to
companies going forward.

With an increase in spending and exposure to high risk class
action suits, respondents revealed that they are doing more work
in house, averaging almost one additional full-time lawyer on
their staffs to manage the defense of class actions.  As in past
years, the data show that companies with a single individual
accountable for class action outcomes enjoy significant cost
savings -- in the range of 22 percent.  Companies that assess
potential financial exposure based on a rigorous case-by-case
evaluation also reap substantial cost savings.  These companies
are better able to direct and strategically manage the defense of
their cases.

"The combined effect of having a single individual responsible
for class action outcomes and routinely taking a deep dive early
into the facts, circumstances, and law applicable to individual
cases results in significant cost savings," Mr. Coutroulis said.

The data also show that the use of alternative fee arrangements
(AFAs) with outside counsel nearly doubled between 2011 and 2013,
with fixed fees remaining the most popular among respondents.
Projections indicate that almost 50 percent of companies will use
AFAs this year.

Corporate legal departments are being more aggressive in their
approach to defending class action suits.  In particular, the
recent Supreme Court decisions Wal-Mart v. Dukes and Comcast v.
Behrend are driving proactive strategies at the class
certification stage.  In the wake of another significant
decision, AT&T v. Concepcion, the survey reveals that the use of
arbitration clauses to preclude class actions has soared. Forty
percent of companies reported now using arbitration clauses that
specifically foreclose class actions.  This is more than double
the percentage in 2012.

Now in its third year, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt's Class Action
Survey tracks trends identified by in-house counsel and best
practices for controlling class action risk and cost.  The
results were compiled from 346 in-depth interviews with general
counsel, chief legal officers, and direct reports to general
counsel of 326 companies.  Survey participants' companies had
average annual revenue of $18.6 billion and median annual
revenues of $4.5 billion.  They operate in more than 25
industries, including banking and financial services, consumer
goods, energy, high tech, insurance, manufacturing, professional
services, and retail trade.

"We are excited about the results," said Mr. Coutroulis.  "We
hope this benchmarking data will help in-house counsel identify
the best approaches for their companies to manage class action
litigation more effectively."


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 560 PI Suits as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 560 lawsuits alleging asbestos-related
personal injury against MeadWestvaco 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.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company
has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of
December 31, 2013, there were approximately 560 lawsuits.
Management believes that the company has substantial
indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to
asbestos claims. The Company has valid defenses to these claims
and intends to continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally,
based on its historical experience in asbestos cases and an
analysis of the current cases, the company believes that it has
adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements and judgments
in asbestos-related litigation. At December 31, 2013, the Company
had recorded litigation liabilities of approximately $32 million,
a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the
volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the
company could incur significant costs resolving these cases.
After consulting with legal counsel and after considering
established liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution
of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) is a global packaging company
providing solutions to the healthcare, beauty and personal care,
food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and agricultural
industries. The company also produces specialty chemicals for the
automotive, energy, and infrastructure industries and maximizes
the value of its land holdings through forestry operations,
property development and land sales. MWV's reporting segments are
Food & Beverage; Home, Health & Beauty; Industrial; Specialty
Chemicals, and Community Development and Land Management. On May
1, 2012, the Company completed the spin-off of its Consumer &
Office Products business and subsequent merger of that business
with ACCO Brands Corporation. On November 30, 2012, MWV acquired
Ruby Macons Limited (Ruby Macons). On December 11, 2012, MWV
acquired the remaining 50% interest in Resitec Industria Quimica,
Ltda. In December 2013, Meadwestvaco Corp completed the sale of
U.S. forestlands to Plum Creek Timber Company.


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

Various asbestos-related personal injury claims have been filed
in U.S. state and federal courts against Domtar Industries Inc.
and certain other affiliates of the Company in connection with
alleged exposure by people to products or premises containing
asbestos. While the Company believes that the ultimate
disposition of these matters, both individually and on an
aggregate basis, will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, there can be no assurance that the Company
will not incur substantial costs as a result of any such claim.
These claims have not yielded a significant exposure in the past.
The Company has recorded a provision for these claims and any
reasonable possible loss in excess of the provision is not
considered to be material.

Domtar Corporation designs, manufactures, markets and distributes
a range of fiber-based products, including communication papers,
specialty and packaging papers and adult incontinence products.
The Company operates in three business segments: Pulp and Paper,
Distribution and Personal Care. Its Pulp and Paper segment
consists of the manufacturing, sale and distribution of
communication, specialty and packaging papers, as well as
softwood, fluff and hardwood market pulp. The Company's
Distribution segment includes the purchasing, warehousing, sale
and distribution of its paper products and those of other
manufacturers. These products include business and printing
papers, certain industrial products and printing supplies. Its
Personal Care segment consists of the manufacturing, sale and
distribution of adult incontinence products. In July 2013, Domtar
Corp acquired Associated Hygienic Products (AHP) from DSG
International. In January 2014, the Company acquired Laboratorios
Indas, SAU.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corp. continues to defend itself against actions based on
alleged exposures 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.

The Company states: "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current
business activities. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, our
consolidated balance sheets included liabilities for these legal
actions of $19.3 million and $15.2 million, respectively. These
liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation. Based on our analysis, and considering the
inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions
will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash
flows or results of operations."

Olin Corporation is a manufacturer focused in three business
segments: Chlor Alkali Products, Chemical Distribution and
Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products manufactures and sells chlorine
and caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products
and potassium hydroxide. Chemical Distribution manufactures
bleach products and distributes caustic soda, bleach products,
potassium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Winchester products
include sporting ammunition, reloading components, small caliber
military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.
The Company's subsidiary, Olin Canada ULC, operates one chlor
alkali facility in Becancour, Quebec, which sells chlor alkali-
related products within Canada and to the United States and also
sells and distributes ammunition within Canada. On August 22,
2012, the Company acquired K. A. Steel Chemicals Inc. (KA Steel).
KA Steel is a distributor of caustic soda in North America and
manufactures and sells bleach in the Midwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Corp. Fibro Removal Cost Pegged at $0.3MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation says its liability for removal of asbestos is
estimated at $300,000, 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.

Under the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and
environmental obligations, Cleco Power determined that a
liability exists for cleanup and closing costs of solid waste
facilities associated with its generating stations that use
lignite for fuel. Applying these guidelines, Cleco Power
determined that a liability exists for costs which may be
incurred in the future for removal of asbestos from its general
service buildings, the removal of transmission towers on leased
right-of-ways, and for the abatement of PCBs in transformers.

At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the liability for solid waste
facility closure costs at the generating station using lignite is
estimated at $0.6 million and is included in other deferred
credits. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, Cleco Power's liability
for removal of asbestos is estimated at $0.3 million and also is
included in other deferred credits.

Cleco Corporation (Cleco) is a public utility holding company
which holds investments in several subsidiaries, including Cleco
Power LLC and its subsidiaries (Cleco Power) and Cleco Midstream
Resources LLC (Midstream), which are its operating business
segments. Cleco Power is an electric utility engaged principally
in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electricity within Louisiana. Cleco Power serves approximately
281,000 customers in Louisiana through its retail business and 10
communities across Louisiana and Mississippi through wholesale
power contracts. Midstream is a merchant energy subsidiary that
owns and operates a merchant power plant (Coughlin). As of
December 31, 2011, Cleco Corporation, through two wholly owned
subsidiaries, owned one transmission substation in Louisiana and
one transmission substation in Mississippi. As of December 31,
2011, Cleco Power's aggregate net electric generating capacity
was 2,488 megawatt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 720 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
United States Corp. was a defendant in approximately 720 active
asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2013, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
720 active asbestos cases involving approximately 3,320
plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a defendant
in approximately 790 active cases involving approximately 3,330
plaintiffs. During 2013, settlements and dismissals resulted in
the disposition of approximately 250 claims and U. S. Steel paid
approximately $11 million in settlements. New filings added
approximately 240 claims.

About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent, of these claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
Most of the claims filed in 2013, 2012 and 2011 involve
individual or small groups of claimants.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products formerly manufactured by U. S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and general
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U. S. Steel.
The ultimate outcome of any claim depends upon a myriad of legal
and factual issues, including whether the plaintiff can prove
actual disease, if any; actual exposure, if any, to U. S. Steel
products; the duration of exposure to asbestos, if any, on U. S.
Steel's premises and the plaintiff's exposure to other sources of
asbestos. In general, the only insurance available to U. S. Steel
with respect to asbestos claims is excess casualty insurance,
which has multi-million dollar self-insured retentions. To date,
U. S. Steel has received minimal payments under these policies
relating to asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
270 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases where the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U. S. Steel or our products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs
have been unable to demonstrate they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related to
U. S. Steel or our products or premises.

In every asbestos case in which U. S. Steel is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against numerous named defendants and
generally do not contain allegations regarding specific monetary
damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages
is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named
defendants and in no case is there any allegation of monetary
damages against U. S. Steel. Historically, approximately 89
percent of the cases against U. S. Steel did not specify any
damage amount or stated that the damages sought exceeded the
amount required to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed. (Jurisdictional amounts generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000). U. S. Steel does not consider the amount of
damages alleged, if any, in a complaint to be relevant in
assessing our potential exposure to asbestos liabilities.

U. S. Steel aggressively pursues grounds for the dismissal of U.
S. Steel from pending cases and litigates cases to verdict where
we believe litigation is appropriate. U. S. Steel also makes
efforts to settle appropriate cases, especially mesothelioma
cases, for reasonable, and frequently nominal, amounts.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U. S. Steel's financial position. U. S. Steel
does not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect
to such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against us
allege so-called "premises" liability-based exposure on U. S.
Steel's current or former premises. These claims may be made by
an indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers,
railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees,
government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers.
In most cases, the claimant was exposed to asbestos in non-U. S.
Steel settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S.
Steel and non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant, and
the strength or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steel
exposure and any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity
of the injury claimed.

U. S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, management believes that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, although the resolution of such
matters could significantly impact results of operations for a
particular period. Among the factors considered in reaching this
conclusion are: (1) it has been many years since U. S. Steel
employed maritime workers or manufactured or sold asbestos
containing products; (2) most asbestos containing material was
removed or remediated at U. S. Steel facilities many years ago
and (3) U. S. Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements and
dismissals.

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) is an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with
production ope. S. Steel is also engaged in other business
activities consisting primarily of transportation services
(railroad and barge operations) and real estate operations.
rations in North America and Europe. The Company operates in
three segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel
Europe (USSE) and Tubular Products (Tubular). U. S. Steel owns,
develops and manages various real estate assets, which include
approximately 200,000 acres of surface rights primarily in
Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota and
Pennsylvania. In addition, U. S. Steel participates in joint
ventures that are developing real estate projects in Alabama,
Maryland and Illinois. U. S. Steel also owns approximately 4,000
acres of land in Ontario, Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 51,490 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., has 51,490 pending asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

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

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

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. As of December 31,
2013, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse
jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the
amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately
two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter
in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02
million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the
Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,315 Claims at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 4,315 asbestos claims pending against Albany
International Corp. as of January 31, 2014, 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.

Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. The
Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had
a useful life of three to twelve months.

The Company states: "We were defending 4,315 claims as of
January 31, 2014.

We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of January 31, 2014,
we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,603
claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $8.7 million.
Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier.
The Company has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage
that should be available with respect to current and future
asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that we
should be able to access."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom,
Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the
United States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets
in the Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Had 67,983 PI Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate total number of asbestos personal injury claims
pending against MetLife, Inc., were 67,983, 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.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation
matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous
variables, including differences in legal rulings in various
jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution
of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual
or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of
certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty
to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell
the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit
has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while
other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no
assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled,
MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims
based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

As of the year ended December 31, 2013, the approximate total
number of asbestos personal injury claims pending against MLIC
were 67,983 and; the approximate total settlement payments made
to resolve asbestos personal injury claims was $37.0 million.

The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount
paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in
pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims
filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in
the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact
of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow
plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to
asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were
well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse
verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos
exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years
further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a
future point after which losses cease to be probable and
reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the
Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially
greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that
future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential
future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or
annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information
currently known by management, management does not believe any
such charges are likely to have a material effect on the
Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the
legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.
Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the
adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos
litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the
cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure
from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos
claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends
impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables
that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or
per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other
companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and
judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving
serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and
other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are
pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from
asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for
asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2013. The frequency
of severe claims relating to asbestos has not declined as
expected, and MLIC has reflected this in its provisions.
Accordingly, MLIC increased its recorded liability for asbestos-
related claims from $417 million to $572 million at December 31,
2013.

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over
50 countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife
operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six
segments: Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate
Benefit Funding and Auto & Home (collectively, U.S. Business),
and Japan and Other International Regions (collectively,
International). U.S. Business provides insurance and financial
services products, including life, dental, disability, auto and
homeowner insurance. In September 2013, MetLife Inc. and Thayer
Lodging Group acquired the 365-room Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf
Resort in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in a joint venture. In October
2013, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA sold its entire 64.3%
interest in Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones Provida SA (AFP
Provida) to Metlife Inc.'s subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Ruling Rocked Fibro World
--------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that a lawyer for Legal Newsline, a publication of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the bankruptcy judge at a hearing
that his opinion in the bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC "rocked the world of asbestos litigation."

According to the report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges
from Charlotte, North Carolina ruled in January that the
"impropriety of some law firms" representing asbestos personal-
injury plaintiffs led to "unfairly inflating recoveries against"
Garlock, a unit of EnPro Industries Inc.

The bottom line in Judge Hodges's opinion was a conclusion that
$125 million was the "reasonable and reliable" estimate of
present and future liability for mesothelioma claims, the report
related.  The asbestos claimants sought almost $1.3 billion.

The January ruling prompted Legal Newsline to file papers asking
Judge Hodges to unseal evidence and parts of the trial transcript
that were sealed, the report further related.  In court on March
27, Legal Newsline's lawyer Steven F. Pflaum said it's important
for the public to see the evidence underlying the ruling because
Judge Hodges decided that "Garlock was victimized by a startling
pattern of misrepresentations and by the suppression of
evidence."

Volkswagen Group of America Inc.'s lawyer Alice S. Johnston told
Judge Hodges that his opinion "made clear the possibility that
there was fraud not only against Garlock in the past, but against
our client Volkswagen," the report added.

                       About Garlock Sealing

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion
in assets and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition
Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq.,
and Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative
for future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright,
Esq., at Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and
Jonathan P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as
his co-counsel.

Judge George Hodges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina on Jan. 10, 2014, entered an
order estimating the liability for present and future
mesothelioma claims against EnPro Industries' Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC subsidiary at $125 million, consistent with the
positions GST put forth at trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPL Corp. Unit Unable to Estimate Fibro ARO
------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation's subsidiary was unable to reasonably estimate
the fair value of a significant conditional asset retirement
obligations related to the removal and disposal of asbestos-
containing material, 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.

PPL Energy Supply has recorded several conditional AROs, the most
significant of which related to the removal and disposal of
asbestos-containing material. In addition to the AROs that were
recorded for asbestos-containing material, PPL Energy Supply
identified other asbestos-related obligations, but was unable to
reasonably estimate their fair values. PPL Energy Supply
management was unable to reasonably estimate a settlement date or
range of settlement dates for the remediation of all of the
asbestos-containing material at certain of the generation plants.
If economic events or other circumstances change that enable PPL
Energy Supply to reasonably estimate the fair value of these
retirement obligations, they will be recorded at that time.

PPL Corporation (PPL) is an energy and utility holding company.
The Company operates in four segments: Kentucky Regulated, U.K.
Regulated, Pennsylvania Regulated and Supply. Through its
subsidiaries, PPL generates electricity from power plants in the
northeastern, northwestern and southeastern United States;
markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the northeastern
and northwestern portions of the United States; delivers
electricity to customers in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia,
Tennessee and the United Kingdom, and natural gas to customers in
Kentucky. As of December 31, 2012, the Company's subsidiaries
were PPL Energy Supply, LLC (PPL Energy Supply), PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric), LG&E and KU Energy LLC
(LKE), PPL Global, LLC (PPL Global), PPL EnergyPlus LLC (PPL
EnergyPlus), PPL Generation LLC (PPL Generation), Louisville Gas
and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to defend lawsuits
alleging that plaintiffs have contracted certain cumulative
trauma diseases related 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.

The Company states: "We categorize the product liability losses
that we experience into two main categories; single incident and
cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are
discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur
and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable
damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident
product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for
pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims
derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant
information. Our reserve for single incident product liability
claims at December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $4.0 million and $4.4
million, respectively. Single incident product liability expense
was negligible during year ended December 31, 2013. During the
years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, single incident product
liability expense was $0.7 million and $1.5 million,
respectively. We evaluate our single incident product liability
exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the reserve
as new information becomes available.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in
2,840 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold
by us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these
lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or
the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple
defendants.

Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to
predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot
reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given
cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability.
This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the
following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide
information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable;
cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and
information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will
develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is
actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the
lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the
lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit
will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the
amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are
highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the
relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the
lawsuit.

Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our
potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit.
We, therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability
losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn
sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we
will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably
estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with
open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred.

We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related
to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product
liability lawsuits that we may face because of certain factors.
As new information about cumulative trauma product liability
cases and future developments becomes available, we reassess our
potential exposures.

Nearly half of the open 2,840 lawsuits at December 31, 2013, have
had a de minimus level of activity over the last 5 years. It is
possible that these cases could become active again at any point
due to changes in circumstances."

MSA Safety Inc., formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company, is
engaged in the development, manufacture and supply of products
that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of
safety products is used by workers worldwide in the fire service,
homeland security, oil and gas, construction and other
industries, as well as the military. Its product offering
includes self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), gas masks,
gas detection instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal
imaging cameras, fall protection and ballistic helmets. The
Company also offers consumer and contractor safety products
through retail channels. Its safety products integrate any
combination of electronics, mechanical systems and advanced
materials to protect users against hazardous or life threatening
situations. Its Safety Works, LLC joint venture provides a range
of safety products and gloves to the North American do-it-
yourself and independent contractor market through various
channels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 362 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were 362 asbestos-related claims pending against Rogers
Corp., 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: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous
United States industrial companies where the third-party
plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing products. We have been named, along with hundreds of
other companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In
virtually all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified,
such amount merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However,
occasionally specific damages are alleged and in such situations,
plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently
without factual basis or support. As a result, even when a
specific amount of damages is alleged, such action can be
arbitrary, both as to the amount being sought and the defendant
being charged with such damages.

We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of December 31, 2013, there were
362 pending claims compared to 319 pending claims at December 31,
2012. The number of pending claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages
in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those
jurisdictions in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific
alleged damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to
do so. In those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and
choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we
believe the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an
indicator of a company's potential liability. This is because (1)
the amounts claimed may bear no relation to the level of the
plaintiff's injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's
litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims
against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are
not allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad
claim is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 362
claims pending as of  December 31, 2013,  69 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought,  291 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and only two (2) claims (less than 1.0%
of the total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought
not based on jurisdictional requirements. Of these two (2)
claims, one (1) claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages
of $20 million each and one (1) claim alleges punitive damages of
$20 million. These two (2) claims name 21 and 29 defendants,
respectively. However, for some reasons, we do not believe that
this data allows for an accurate assessment of the relation that
the amount of alleged damages claimed might bear to the ultimate
disposition of these cases.

We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because
of increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant
increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases
arose in Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of
claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort
reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries),
which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in
a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi
by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by
the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number
of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in
2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008
and increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits
filed against us in 2011, 2012 and 2013 was significantly higher
than in 2010.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that a
majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to
demonstrate exposure or loss. This belief is based in large part
on the limited number of asbestos-related products manufactured
and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was encapsulated in
such products. In addition, even at sites where the presence of
an alleged injured party can be verified during the same period
those products were used, our liability cannot be presumed
because even if an individual contracted an asbestos-related
disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was exposed to
the asbestos containing products that we manufactured. Based on
these and other factors, we have and will continue to vigorously
defend ourselves in asbestos-related matters."

Rogers Corporation (NYSE:ROG) is a global technology leader in
specialty materials and components for consumer electronics,
power electronics, mass transit, clean energy, and
telecommunications infrastructure. With more than 182 years of
materials science and engineering experience, Rogers provides
product designers with solutions to help them power, protect and
connect our world with greater reliability, efficiency and
performance. Rogers' three core businesses include Power
Electronics Solutions for high-voltage rail traction, energy
efficient motor drives, wind and solar power conversion; High
Performance Foams for cushioning, sealing and impact protection
in tablets and smart phones, aircraft, rail and automotive
interiors, sporting goods, apparel and gear; and Printed Circuit
Materials for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, smart
antennas, and radar systems for automotive and defense
applications. Headquartered in Connecticut (USA), Rogers operates
manufacturing facilities in the United States, China, Germany,
Belgium, Hungary, and South Korea, with joint ventures and sales
offices worldwide. For more information, visit www.rogerscorp.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Paid $4.8-Mil. to Settle PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp.'s settlements of asbestos-related claims total
approximately $4.8 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims. For the year ended December 31, 2013, 115 claims were
dismissed and 23 were settled. For the year ended December 31,
2012, the Company was able to have 93 claims dismissed and
settled 16 claims.  The majority of costs have been paid by the
Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with
the small number of cases that have been settled. Those
settlements totaled approximately $4.8 million for the year ended
December 31, 2013, compared to $6.3 million for the year ended
December 31, 2012 and such settlement amounts were paid by the
Company's insurance carriers.  Although these figures provide
some insight into the Company's experience with asbestos
litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and
settlement rates that the Company will experience in the future.

Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of
legal defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or
as part of a group of claimants. To date, the Company has been
successful in obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and
have settled only a limited number. The majority of settled
claims were settled for immaterial amounts, and the majority of
such costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers. In
addition, to date, the Company has not been required to pay any
punitive damage awards.

Rogers Corporation (NYSE:ROG) is a global technology leader in
specialty materials and components for consumer electronics,
power electronics, mass transit, clean energy, and
telecommunications infrastructure. With more than 182 years of
materials science and engineering experience, Rogers provides
product designers with solutions to help them power, protect and
connect our world with greater reliability, efficiency and
performance. Rogers' three core businesses include Power
Electronics Solutions for high-voltage rail traction, energy
efficient motor drives, wind and solar power conversion; High
Performance Foams for cushioning, sealing and impact protection
in tablets and smart phones, aircraft, rail and automotive
interiors, sporting goods, apparel and gear; and Printed Circuit
Materials for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, smart
antennas, and radar systems for automotive and defense
applications. Headquartered in Connecticut (USA), Rogers operates
manufacturing facilities in the United States, China, Germany,
Belgium, Hungary, and South Korea, with joint ventures and sales
offices worldwide. For more information, visit www.rogerscorp.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $59.7MM Fibro Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp. estimates its asbestos-related liability to be $59.7
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA), a consulting
firm with expertise in the field of evaluating mass tort
litigation asbestos bodily-injury claims, has historically been
engaged to assist the Company in projecting its future asbestos-
related liabilities and defense costs with regard to pending
claims and future unasserted claims.  Projecting future asbestos
costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely
difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might
be received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the
financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in
claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions
with respect to these variables are subject to even greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these
inherent uncertainties, the variability of the Company's claims
history and consultations with NERA, it currently believes that
ten years is the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve
for future costs, and that costs that might be incurred after
that period are not reasonably estimable at this time.  As a
result, the Company also believes that its ultimate asbestos-
related contingent liability (i.e., its indemnity or other claim
disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot be estimated
with certainty.

The Company states, "Our applicable insurance policies generally
provide coverage for asbestos liability costs, including coverage
for both resolution and defense costs. Following the initiation
of asbestos litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our
primary, umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that
provided applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the
mid-1980s. We located primary policies for all such years except
for the early 1960s. With respect to this period, we entered into
an arrangement with ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company in
2005, pursuant to which we and they share in asbestos liabilities
allocable to such period. We have located umbrella or excess
layer policies for all such years except for the period from May
18, 1961 to May 18, 1964. Where appropriate, carriers were put on
notice of the litigation. Marsh USA, Inc., also known as Marsh
Risk Consulting (Marsh), a consulting firm with expertise in the
field of evaluating insurance coverage and the likelihood of
recovery for asbestos-related claims, has historically been
engaged to work with us to project our insurance coverage for
asbestos-related claims. Marsh's conclusions are based primarily
on a review of our coverage history, application of reasonable
assumptions on the allocation of coverage consistent with certain
industry practices, an assessment of the creditworthiness of the
insurance carriers, analysis of applicable deductibles,
retentions and policy limits, the experience of NERA and a review
of NERA's reports.

To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all
of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-
related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and
such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the
ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers
until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This
agreement, which replaced an older agreement which had expired,
can be terminated by election of any party thereto after January
25, 2015. Absent any such election, the agreement will continue
until a party elects to terminate it.

In 2013, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage
for the January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967 period exhausted. The
cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier over
exhausted primary layer carriers will become a party to the cost
sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the
exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess
coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement.
The excess carrier providing coverage for the period is currently
providing applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the
allocation provisions of the cost sharing agreement, but has not
yet signed that agreement.

The models developed for determining the potential exposure and
related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants
deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast
for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the
related insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The
models contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the
results generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made
are reasonable at the present time, but are subject to
uncertainty based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos
litigation. Historically, due to the inherent uncertainties of
the forecast process and our limited amount of settlement and
claims history, we utilized a forecast period of five years,
which we concluded was the most reasonable period for recognizing
a reserve for projected asbestos liabilities, and that costs that
might be incurred after that period were not reasonably estimable
at that time. In 2012, we reviewed this assumption and determined
that it was appropriate to extend the forecast period from five
years to ten years. We reached this conclusion due to the fact
that we now have considerably more experience in addressing
asbestos related lawsuits and have a longer history of activity
to use as a baseline to more accurately project the liability
over a longer period than previously disclosed. Also, settlement
trends have become more meaningful in recent years and we believe
that we now have a more meaningful history of data on which to
base our projections. Further, we determined that a ten year
projection period is now appropriate as, although we have a
longer and more consistent history of data over the last few
years, we do not believe we have sufficient data to justify a
longer projection period at this time. As of December 31, 2013,
the estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery for the
ten-year period through 2023 was $59.7 million and $57.1 million,
respectively. For sensitivity purposes, if the forecast period
were to be decreased to five years, the projected liability and
related insurance recovery would be $34.9 million and $33.6
million, respectively. Further, we determined if the forecast
period were increased to fifteen years, the projected liability
and related insurance recovery would be $77.2 million and $73.2
million, respectively.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States could cause the actual
liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded.

There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we
have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future
costs related to this matter."

Rogers Corporation (NYSE:ROG) is a global technology leader in
specialty materials and components for consumer electronics,
power electronics, mass transit, clean energy, and
telecommunications infrastructure. With more than 182 years of
materials science and engineering experience, Rogers provides
product designers with solutions to help them power, protect and
connect our world with greater reliability, efficiency and
performance. Rogers' three core businesses include Power
Electronics Solutions for high-voltage rail traction, energy
efficient motor drives, wind and solar power conversion; High
Performance Foams for cushioning, sealing and impact protection
in tablets and smart phones, aircraft, rail and automotive
interiors, sporting goods, apparel and gear; and Printed Circuit
Materials for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, smart
antennas, and radar systems for automotive and defense
applications. Headquartered in Connecticut (USA), Rogers operates
manufacturing facilities in the United States, China, Germany,
Belgium, Hungary, and South Korea, with joint ventures and sales
offices worldwide. For more information, visit www.rogerscorp.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Halts Drilling at Queensland Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
SteelGuru.com reported that Origin Energy, in charge of CSG
drilling for the Australia Pacific liquefied natural gas project,
said that it had stopped work at 12 sites in Queensland as
asbestos had been found in drilling fluids it was using.

Origin said the supplier of some of its drilling fluids,
Australian Mud Company (AMC), owned by Imdex Ltd, had found that
its imported walnut-shell based product NUTPLUG contained
asbestos.

The asbestos scare is likely to add to concerns over coal seam
gas drilling.  Farmers and environmentalists already fear that
"fracking", a drilling technique that uses high-pressure water,
sand and chemicals to extract gas trapped in rock, could
contaminate water supplies.

Origin added that it was providing support to anyone who may have
been exposed to the drilling fluids.  A company spokeswoman was
not immediately available to comment on whether any workers or
landowners around the drilling sites had been affected or what
impact the drilling problem might have on the Asia-Pacific LNG
project, which is due to start exporting in mid-2015.

Origin said that AMC is withdrawing its NUTPLUG product from the
market and investigating where it came from.

AMC officials were not immediately available for comment.

Meanwhile, Origin is a 37.5% owner of the Australia Pacific LNG
project, alongside ConocoPhillips with 37.5% and China's Sinopec
with 25%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Owner Gets Jailed for Fibro Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Puget Sound Business Journal, reported
that the owner of an apartment complex in Kent, Seattle, was
sentenced to 15 months in jail for not protecting his residents
from asbestos.

Stanley Xu, 53, was sentenced to jail for violating the Clean Air
Act by exposing residents and workers to airborne asbestos. His
company, Longwell Company, was also fined $159,850.  Xu owned the
Avante Apartments in Kent and when a pipe broke in 2009, he hired
a contractor to clean up the mess who didn't protect residents
from asbestos in the ceiling. He previously had hired asbestos
cleanup workers who didn't protect residents or workers from
asbestos dangers, the government alleged.

"Mr. Xu and his company were well aware of the regulations
surrounding clean-up and disposal of asbestos contamination, and
chose instead to put his tenants and workers at risk," said U.S.
Attorney Jenny Durkan, in a statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town Approves Fibro Removal Project at Library
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Barbosa, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reported that
town officials said the asbestos removal project at the Hepburn
Library, in Norfolk, New York, is set for May after funding was
approved.

"We are taking a one-year bond anticipation note because we do
not know what we're going to get for grant money. We don't know
if we're going to get it yet," town Supervisor Charles A. Pernice
said. "They've changed the date a couple of times when they were
going to announce it, so the easiest way is to do a bond
anticipation note and do the financing for whatever is left. What
started with a leaky library roof turned into friable asbestos
shingles and has turned into quite the expense. I had just
assumed from estimations that it would be $30,000 or $40,000, and
it turned into $155,200."

The Hepburn Library was constructed in 1921 and is listed on the
state and national registers of Historic Places.

In September 2012, the town board voted to contribute $6,000
toward roof repair work that Library Director Vicky L. Brothers
had estimated to cost $7,800. Work crews later discovered friable
asbestos, so the project was scaled back to address only the
immediate problems with leakage. That work was completed in
November 2012.

Last September, town officials accepted a $96,000 bid from Lupini
Construction, Utica, for work on the roof. The work will include
tearing off the asbestos-contaminated roof and installing new
shingles.

"Within that ($155,200) there's some work restoration also to
keep the historical value of" the building, Councilman Robert J.
Harvey said.

The town had plans last fall to seek a New York State Library
Construction Grant, which targets new additions, rehabilitation
work and handicapped accessibility improvements, to help pay for
the work.  It is moving forward with the expectation it will
receive a 50/50 matching grant, but there are no guarantees.

Ms. Brothers said in the fall that the ratio could change
depending on the number of libraries that apply for the grant.

"They allot so much money to North Country Library System and
they put out the word," she said. "Then libraries apply and then
they have to go through three stages. The first step is that the
library goes to submit it to the North Country Library System."
She said the library would not know whether they will receive a
grant until August.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Contract on Hold Pending Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Micallef, writing for Times of Malta, reported that an
asbestos removal contract has been put on hold pending an
investigation into the winning bidder which was allegedly found
not to have insurance covering accidental public exposure, in
breach of the tender specifications.

A spokesman for the Economy Ministry said the contract which
concerns the removal of asbestos from a section of the Marsa open
centre for immigrants, was "at a standstill".

The investigation was launched after an exercise by The Sunday
Times of Malta revealed that only two companies of the five that
advertise asbestos removal services claim to have insurance
cover.  The owner of one said his company does not actually do
the cleaning itself but leaves it to an unnamed "foreign
company". It is this company that has the insurance cover, not
his.

The material was used widely for insulation and fireproofing
until the late 1970s, before it was established that asbestos can
release tiny fibres into the air that cause cancer when inhaled.

As a result, Malta has scores of old factories, particularly
abandoned properties belonging to the Malta Industrial Parks,
which are littered with the material. Nonetheless, Malta does not
have legislation regulating asbestos removal companies
specifically. Moreover, they do not need to have an insurance
cover, unlike countries like the UK, where it is a requirement
for any company undertaking this sort of work. The government had
been making the need for insurance cover a requirement in public
tenders for asbestos removal. However, the requirement has not
been consistent over the years.

Besides, the tender under investigation, this newspaper
discovered that the requirement was mysteriously dropped on a
recent tender and when questions were sent to the government, the
Contracts Department issued an addendum to the tender, pointing
out that the requirement had been mistakenly left out.

Both the finance and economy ministries were asked whether this
"mistake" was being looked into and for the status of the tender
already under investigation.

However, no response was forthcoming.

Many readers reacted with concern to a report in The Sunday Times
of Malta regarding the lack of regulation for asbestos handling
companies. Among them was a doctor, Charles Gauci from Sannat,
who recounted the story of a fellow doctor in his 60s from the UK
and who died recently of asbestosis.  He was exposed to the
material for a relatively short time when he worked on a building
site to pay his way while studying at university. Diseases caused
by asbestos usually take between 10 to 40 years to develop.

The biggest concentration of asbestosis in Malta remains that
related to the former drydocks. In 2012, the heirs workers filed
individual and class action lawsuits in the US, seeking their
right to compensation in damages for occupational exposures to
asbestos products while working -- among other places -- on US
warships.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Follow Illegal Fibro Dumping
-----------------------------------------------------
Bay of Plenty Times reported that a demolition and digger company
will join the owner of a ship which leaked oil in the harbor in
Tauranga, New Zealand, last year to face charges at Tauranga
District Court.

Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Tauranga City Council have
come together in the joint prosecutions.  The owner of the
container ship Liloa will face prosecution for allegedly leaking
about 1000 litres of heavy fuel oil into Tauranga Harbour at the
Port of Tauranga in July last year.

Oil spilled over the ship's deck and into the water during a
refuelling accident. There was oil contamination in the water and
contaminated sea grass was removed from Pilot Bay.  The regional
council has also called on demolition and digger hire company 'C'
Side to face charges after allegedly illegally disposing of
asbestos-contaminated demolition waste and clearing native
vegetation in Otumoetai last year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Cop Wins $75,000 in Whistle-Blower Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Slobodzian, writing for Philly.com, reported that a
Philadelphia judge has awarded $75,000 in damages to a city
police officer who sued, claiming superiors retaliated against
him after he complained of shoddy asbestos removal at the Police
Athletic League center he managed.

The award by Common Pleas Court Judge John Milton Younge followed
a Feb. 27 verdict by a trial jury in the whistle-blower suit by
Officer Paul Zenak against the Police Department and city.
Younge ordered that Zenak, 44, a 23-year veteran officer, be
returned to his job as manager of the PAL center at Wissinoming
United Methodist Church, 4419 Comly St., and reimbursed $75,000
for 271-1/2 days of leave he used after suing and $411 in medical
expenses.

Younge awarded a total of $195,184 in fees and costs to Zenak's
lawyers at the Center City firm Layser & Freiwald P.C.

"We consider this a real vindication for him," said lawyer Aaron
J. Freiwald.

City Solicitor Shelley Smith said her office would appeal.

In May 2012, Zenak sued under Pennsylvania's "whistle-blower"
law, naming the city, Police Department, PAL, church and J.
Bailey Builders, the New Jersey-based contractor renovating the
church basement in 2011.

The city's 26 PAL centers are administered through a nonprofit
that raises funds and with taxpayer support. The centers are
operated as a unit of the Police Department with officers
assigned as on-site managers.

Zenak, married and the father of four, had managed the PAL center
since 2008. In 2011, the contractor doing renovations told him
there was exposed asbestos wrapping 60 feet of pipe hanging in
the room where children did homework. Asbestos, a fireproof
fibrous mineral long used as an insulator in buildings, can cause
cancer and other lung diseases if inhaled.

Several weeks later, after Zenak found the pipe insulation gone
and a layer of dust everywhere, he complained to his superiors,
and he got the first of several reprimands.

Freiwald said Zenak went on leave after filing the suit,
complaining that his asthma had worsened and his stress was so
bad he once went to an emergency room fearing a heart attack.
Although PAL officials assured him tests showed no evidence of
airborne asbestos particles, Freiwald said the testing was done
long after removal.

Freiwald earlier reached confidential settlements with the church
and PAL and Bailey was dismissed from the suit before trial.

Pending is a separate civil suit seeking medical monitoring for
about 100 children who might have been exposed to asbestos while
attending programs at the Wissinoming PAL center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Battle With Fibro in Melbourne Shop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a family living
above shops in suburban Melbourne has been evacuated after a
clothing store caught alight.  A passing police patrol spotted
the Balwyn fire at dawn and helped a family living above a
neighbouring shop get out safely.  Firefighters had to contend
with asbestos as they battled to confine the fire, which caused
$100,000 damage to the clothing store.

The adjoining building suffered only minor smoke and fire damage.
No one was injured and the cause of the fire is yet to be
determined.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Property Owners Fined for Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Johnson, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has fined
Alan Bernhardt and Sallie Swartz $9,000 for violations of
regulations related to the removal of asbestos at their rental
property on 32 Main Street, officials said.

DEP officials inspected the property in December 2012 after
receiving complaints from tenants. They found that Bernhardt and
Swartz had hired someone to remove asbestos pipe insulation
without employing the proper procedures for removal and disposal.
They also failed to file the required paperwork with the DEP,
officials said.

Asbestos materials removed from the property were disposed of at
the town transfer station by Bernhardt, officials said.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen and exposure to it has been liked
to lung cancer and other cancers.

They have since cooperated with the DEP and hired a licensed
contractor to properly clean up their property, officials said.

The couple was originally fined $23,379, but the DEP agreed to
waive the remaining $18,379 providing Berhardt and Swartz comply
with the terms of the order and remain in compliance with the
state asbestos handling regulations for a one-year period.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Drilling Mud Engineers File Suit to Seek Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
notable example of the kinds of allegations various enterprises
are facing with regard to asbestos drilling, and health issues
faced by plaintiffs after alleged exposure to asbestos through
contact with drilling mud, is the sizeable lawsuit filed back in
the summer involving a host of plaintiffs and defendants.

And if one is ever to wonder why the term "et al" is so often
used to describe specific lawsuits, it is due to the numbers
involved. To wit: Bridges et al v. Chevron Phillips Chemical
Company, LP et al (No. 3:2013-cv-00477, in the US Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana) is a lawsuit that features no fewer
than 10 plaintiffs and 12 defendants.

The allegation: that the various defendants exposed the
plaintiffs to asbestos contamination through the mixing and use
of oil drilling mud while employed on oil rigs spanning two
decades, according to court documents.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs allege they developed health issues related to
asbestos exposure while employed on oil rigs located throughout
the Gulf of Mexico. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants that
manufactured the oil drilling mud and sold it to drilling rig
operators knew about the health hazards related to asbestos
exposure, but failed to warn potential users of the hazards.

According to court documents filed in the original action in June
2013, "Plaintiffs handled and were exposed to asbestos drilling
mud additives frequently on a regular basis, were frequently and
regularly covered in defendants' asbestos products, and
frequently and regularly breathed in defendants' asbestos
products.

"Defendants had actual knowledge of the significant danger
associated with their products, but they nevertheless sold raw
asbestos drilling mud additives in 50-pound bags for use by oil
field workers like plaintiffs in the oil and gas drilling
industry from 1960s to 1980s."

Drilling mud is integral to the drilling process. It helps to
cool the drilling apparatus and prevent ruptures. The mud is
usually mixed on-site from a powdered concentrate. Many a mud
engineer stricken with asbestosis has described working in a haze
of dust, unaware that they were inhaling and ingesting asbestos
fibers. Asbestos is a known carcinogen, yet was widely used in
industrial settings due to its insulating properties.

Workers have toiled for years without realizing they had a
drilling mud problem until decades later. Asbestos is known to
incubate in the body and lay dormant for up to 30 years, before
emerging as asbestos cancer or mesothelioma. There is no known
cure.  Since the initial drilling mud lawsuit was filed in June,
the defendants lobbied to have the case moved to federal court
given that the Outer Continental Lands Act provides federal
jurisdiction over matters occurring around the Outer Continental
Shelf.

In November, a Motion to Dismiss put forward by defendant Shell
Oil Co. was granted, in part, to require plaintiffs to file
amended petitions clarifying the factual basis for each claim
under the Jones Act against the defendant. All other aspects of
the Motion to Dismiss were denied by Magistrate Judge Stephen C.
Riedlinger on November 22nd of last year. Plaintiffs and their
legal teams had about two weeks to comply.

In the meantime, mud engineers having worked closely with oil
drilling mud in the past are watching their health carefully;
fearful of what may lie ahead.

Defendants are Shell Oil Company; Nico Supply Co., Inc.; Murphy
Exploration & Production Company - USA; Montello Inc; Murphy
Exploration & Production Company; Exxon Mobil Corporation; Noble
Drilling Corporation; ENSCO Offshore Company; Coastal Chemical
Co, L.L.C.; Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP; Baker Hughes
Oilfield Operations, Inc.; and Union Carbide Corporation.

Plaintiffs in the drilling mud lawsuit are seeking future lost
wages and benefits, past and future medical expenses, damages for
pain, suffering and moral anguish, emotional distress, fear of
cancer, and punitive damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Jury Awards $7.2-Mil. in Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that a Philadelphia jury awarded $7.2 million against nine
companies whose products were allegedly used by a shipfitter
whose estate claimed his exposure to the asbestos-containing
products caused the man's mesothelioma and death.

With eight of the nine defendants settling before or during
trial, the sole defendant, RSCC Wire and Cable, will be on the
hook for one-ninth of the award, or approximately $805,000, the
plaintiff's attorney, Lawrence Cohan of Anapol Schwartz, said.

Edward Merwitz worked as a shipfitter at the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard from 1965 to 1971 before spending the rest of his career
as a nurse anesthetist. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
2010 and died six months later at the age of 62.

Merwitz's wife and administrator of his estate, Rosemarie
Merwitz, filed the suit on his behalf against RSCC, which was
listed on the verdict sheet at Rockbestos, and eight other
companies: General Electric, Westinghouse, Greene Tweed, Buffalo
Pumps, Blackmer Pumps, Warren Pumps, Square D and DeLaval
Turbine. Cohan said all of those companies, with the exception of
Rockbestos, settled before or during the trial.

All nine defendants were listed on the jury sheet and the eight
jurors voted 7-1 in finding all of the defendants created
products that were a substantial factor in causing Edward
Merwitz's mesothelioma. The case, Merwitz v. Allis Chalmers
Product Liability Trust, was heard before Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas Judge Victor DiNubile. The trial opened Feb. 27 and
the jurors deliberated for about three hours March 12 before
returning with their verdict.

The jury awarded about $3.6 million in Survival Act damages and
about $3.6 million in wrongful-death damages, according to a copy
of the verdict sheet provided by Cohan.

The case against Rockbestos presented challenges, Cohan said,
because Merwitz was a shipfitter who didn't deal directly with
Rockbestos' electrical wire products.

"Regular, frequent and proximate is a particularly daunting
defense when you have a plaintiff who is a shipfitter" in a case
against an electrical manufacturer, Cohan said.

Cohan was referring to the requirement in asbestos cases that the
plaintiff prove he had regular, frequent and proximate exposure
to a defendant's asbestos-containing product. Cohan said
Rockbestos argued Merwitz didn't directly handle its product and
so it couldn't have been something he was regularly exposed to.
Cohan said Merwitz had second-hand exposure to the product
through being around other shipyard employees who were using the
wiring.

There were three other main arguments at trial, Cohan said.
Rockbestos first argued that the two plaintiff witnesses --
former co-workers of Merwitz -- didn't correctly identify a
Rockbestos product as the specific wiring product to which
Merwitz was exposed.

The second battle, Cohan said, was over whether the type of
asbestos fibers contained in Rockbestos' product could actually
cause mesothelioma. The fiber in wiring products, Cohan said, is
known as chrysotile. He said there is a debate in the medical
community as to whether that type of fiber causes mesothelioma.
The parties' respective experts came down on either side of the
issue, and Cohan said the jury clearly believed the plaintiff's
argument that the fiber does cause mesothelioma.

The other defense in the case, Cohan said, was that the
Rockbestos product did not give off enough asbestos fibers to
have been a factor in Merwitz developing mesothelioma. Cohan said
the defense wanted to point out that the asbestos levels were
below the OSHA requirements, but he said those requirements
weren't in place at the time Merwitz worked in the shipyard and
aren't relevant to the determination in this case.

"The battle is not over whether they meet some threshold limit
value or permissible exposure level," Cohan said. "It's whether
or not it gives off fiber above the ambient air levels."

There were three expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. Dr. Arthur
Frank, an occupational medicine specialist from Drexel
University, testified that chrysotile fibers do cause
mesothelioma, Cohan said. Pathologist Harvey Spector of Crozer-
Keystone Health System also testified to that point, Cohan said.
The plaintiff also called as an expert witness industrial
hygienist Neil Jurinski of Maryland.

Atlanta-based industrial hygienist Charles Blake testified for
the defense, Cohan said.

Cohan worked on the case with David Carney of his firm. Robert P.
Corbin and Tiffany Giangiulio of German Gallagher & Murtagh
represented Rockbestos. Corbin did not return a call seeking
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Linked to Pensioner's Death
-------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that a former furnace engineer died due
to industrial disease, an inquest heard.  David Masters, of
Glendale Drive, Wombourne, England, died in Compton Hospice on
November 12, aged 79.

Dr Manel Mangalika, a consultant histopathologist at New
CrossHospital in Wolverhampton, said Mr Masters had been exposed
to asbestos during his working life and had been diagnosed with
asbestosis in 1996.

"During the post mortem a tumour was found in his lungs," she
said.

"On further examination I saw there was metastatic cancer which
had spread into his liver and chest. He also had pneumonia. There
were signs of asbestos exposure from the past."

Senior Coroner Robin Balmain told the inquest at Walsall manor
Hospital Mr Masters had spent 18 years working as a furnace
engineer, a job which involved stripping layers of asbestos sheet
insulation from furnaces. He concluded Mr Masters had died due to
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Origin Energy Restarts Rigs After Fibro Scare
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that Origin Energy has
restarted drilling on five of 12 southeast Queensland rigs where
operations were suspended due to asbestos contamination.

Origin suspended work at its Australian Pacific liquefied natural
gas (LNG) project after drilling fluid supplier Australian Mud
Company notified it that an additive was recently found to
contain asbestos.

Origin says it is conducting airborne and surface testing to
ensure drilling rigs either have no traces of asbestos or have
been verified as safe and cleared to resume operations.

"As a result, five of the previously suspended drilling rigs have
been tested and returned to work," the company said.

The remaining seven rigs are expected to return to service over
the coming days.

Origin previously said all stocks of affected material had been
quarantined and accounted for throughout the supply chain.

Specialist waste removal experts were removing material from each
location for safe disposal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawkins Officials Hope Contaminated House Sells
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bobo, writing for Times News, reported that leaders of
Hawkins County in Tennessee are hoping a house near Rogersville
that has been on the delinquent tax list for about a decade can
be sold without the county having to absorb environmental cleanup
costs.

Hawkins County delinquent tax attorney James Point told county
commissioners that the former Farmer House on Route 70-N about a
mile north of Rogersville was previously placed up for auction
for delinquent taxes but there were no bidders.  When there are
no bidders in a county tax auction, the county usually takes
ownership of the property.

Point said that after the auction he didn't finalize the
transaction in the case of the Farmer House, however, due to the
high potential cost of cleaning up asbestos and mold inside the
dilapidated old house.

There were only three members of the county commission's
Delinquent Tax Committee present for the meeting, which meant
there wasn't a quorum and no official action could be taken.
Those members who were present, including Chairman Darrell
Gilliam, Syble Vaughan-Trent and B.D. Cradic, did discuss the
Farmer House with Point.

Gilliam said he had been contacted by a man whose property
adjoins the Farmer House property, and that man has indicated
he'd like to buy the property for $5,000.  Gilliam said the man
would then absorb the cost of tearing down the house and proper
disposal of the hazardous materials.

"I could probably name you six or seven people who have lived
there and died of cancer, and I don't know if that's from the
asbestos or what," Gilliam said. "I know I'm not going inside of
it. The owner walked away from it, and it has sat there empty for
years. It's a terrible eyesore and a danger to the community."

Gilliam added, "(If the neighbor buys it) it would look good for
the community and it would get that little piece of property back
on the county tax roll."

Legally, the county must set the minimum bid for a delinquent tax
property no less than what is owed in back taxes, plus interest
and attorney fees.

Point didn't have that figure for the Farmer House, but he said
he would try to find that out.  Point told commissioners there is
a legal provision for waiving the fees and interest on property
requiring environmental cleanup, but Point said a judge would
have to approve that.

The next delinquent tax property sale is in April, and Point said
there isn't enough time to place the Farmer House in that
auction.

The next auction after that is in August.

Before then, the Delinquent Tax Committee will meet again to
determine what to do if the minimum bid for the Farmer House
would exceed $5,000, and if so, should Point seek a court order
to waive interest and fees.

The Farmer House is next door to property where Of One Accord
ministry recently placed a mobile home for a homeless family with
five children, who will be moving in soon.

Gilliam expressed concern that those children may go inside the
house and get injured or sick.

"I would like to see it cleaned up for the neighborhood, and see
the county get out of the liability," Gilliam said. "I know it
would cost the taxpayers a lot of money to clean that little spot
up."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Hears Ford Worker Was Exposed to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reported that a man from Hampshire, England, who spent
all his life working on a production line for cars died as a
result of asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

George Wade was found dead by staff at the nursing home in New
Milton where he was being cared for, due to a number of different
medical conditions.  Southampton Coroners' Court heard that the
88-year-old had spent his whole life working on the Ford
production line, rising to the position of production manager.

Coroner Keith Wiseman ruled that Mr Wade died from natural causes
contributed to by asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gauteng Gov't to Phase Out Fibro Roofing
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Gauteng [South Africa] Provincial Government (GPG) will
phase out hazardous asbestos roofing and replace it with tile
roofing", said Gauteng Premier Nomvula Mokonyane during her visit
in Soshanguve on March 16, 2014, Moneyweb.com reported.

Mokonyane's visit came as part of an Imbizo that announced an
intervention plan for the houses that were damaged by hailstorm
in various parts of the province in December last year.  The
thunderstorm affected about 44 800 households and the damage is
estimated at R100 million. Most of the houses in townships are
roofed with asbestos; which has since been identified as a
serious health hazard.

"We are starting with Tshwane, but eventually every household
with asbestos roof will be a thing of the past.  We need to start
protecting our people against any hazardous material because the
effects on the health of our people, are dire," Mokonyane said.

The GPG, in conjunction with the City of Tshwane is co-ordinating
the humanitarian efforts in the area. "There have been so many
asbestos related deaths in the past and as government we can no
longer turn a blind eye; asbestos is toxic," stressed Mokonyane

A total of nine contractors have been appointed to repair the
houses that were damaged by the thunderstorms. The repair work
started in Soshanguve. Priority will be given to vulnerable
households such as child-headed, elderly, women and children as
well as the indigent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Milford on Sea Beach Huts
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that asbestos has been discovered in almost all
of the privately owned beach huts at a coastal resort in
Hampshire, England.  Of 119 concrete huts in Milford on Sea, 112
have been found to have asbestos sheeting on the bottom of the
roof slabs, according to New Forest District Council.

Loose asbestos was exposed when many of the huts were severely
damaged during the St Valentine's Day storm.  The authority said
it had now been removed by a specialist contractor.  It said the
remaining asbestos in the huts, which have been fenced off to the
public since the storm, was not dangerous because it has not been
disturbed, but was being removed.

Sixteen collapsed

The council said it had carried out a risk assessment and
structural survey of the site, which had revealed many of the
huts suffered from structural defects.  It added 16 had collapsed
as a result of the storm and nine had been confirmed as
dangerous, which it now plans to demolish.

The authority said the huts would remain fenced off while further
work was carried out and options were considered for the future
provision of beach huts.  The authority said it had written to
the owners advising them of the situation and had been in ongoing
talks with the Beach Hut Owners Association.

Councillor Edward Heron said: "We appreciate people's sentiment
for their beach huts and no doubt there will be disappointment in
seeing some go, but our main priority at this stage is to ensure
public safety."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Sounds Alarm for Renovators
---------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a new report predicts a third wave of
people affected by asbestos-related illness is about to emerge.

Professor Rick van der Zwan, from the Southern Cross University,
says future victims will probably have been exposed to asbestos
during home renovations.  He says while women currently make up
about 20 per cent of those affected, that figure is likely to
rise to about 50 per cent.

Professor van der Zwan says the trend will present a serious
challenge to health authorities.  "Everything that's in place now
around asbestos is associated with acquiring the disease in a
workplace, and that's not going to be the case for the people in
the third wave of exposure," he said.

"So we really need to think long and hard about how we're going
to deal with that.

"It's going to have significant financial impacts, because people
are going to start developing it younger.

"Principally home renovators, or people who were kiddies when
their parents were renovating.

"Of course that's going to lead to a much larger representation
of women amongst sufferers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Defendants Succeeding in Rare Trials
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that despite an ever-increasing and record-breaking amount of
asbestos lawsuits being filed in Madison County, Ill., attorneys
say trials there have been less frequent than in other
jurisdictions -- and dominated recently by defendants.

The asbestos docket that landed Madison County on the American
Tort Reform Association's annual "Judicial Hellholes" list has
seen nine consecutive defense verdicts since 2005, averaging
about one trial per year.

Nicknamed the epicenter of asbestos litigation by ATRA, Madison
County is largest asbestos docket in the country and saw another
record-breaking year for newly filed 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.

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.

While it may have the nation's largest number of new filings, the
county sees a relatively small number of trials compared to other
major asbestos jurisdictions across the U.S., several defense
attorneys agreed.

Attorney Brian Huelsmann of HeplerBroom, who was part of the
defense teams representing Georgia Pacific in two of the below-
mentioned trials, said that prior to 2005 there were three large
plaintiff verdicts in Madison County, awarding claimants $16
million, $34 million and $250 million.

In April 2003, a Madison County jury ordered defendant U.S. Steel
to pay the claimant Roby Whittington of Indiana $250 million for
his asbestos-related illness. However, it later settled for an
undisclosed amount following the verdict in lieu of an appeal.

National asbestos expert Lester Brickman, law professor of the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New
York, suggested that the multimillion-dollar plaintiff verdicts
entered demonstrated a "clear pro-plaintiff bias on the part of
the juries," but recognized that there have been some notable
defense verdicts recently.

Fast-forward to 2005, and the tables turned in favor of the
defense. That year, Madison County saw two asbestos trials, the
first resulting in a relatively small plaintiff win and the
second a defense victory.

In May 2005, a jury deliberated for nine hours over two days
before entering a verdict in favor of claimant Willard King and
his wife for $500,000.

Defendant Bondex International was held liable for the verdict,
while defendant Georgia Pacific was not found to be at fault in
the case, resulting in a defense win.

The Madison Record reports that the amount was reduced to almost
nothing due to King's settlements prior to attempting a trial
with the remaining defendants.

In a second 2005 trial, a jury deliberated for just 20 minutes
before ruling in favor of defendant General Electric following an
eight-day trial, which was almost cut short due to evidence
deemed "weak" by the presiding judge.

In this case, claimant Jane Gudmundson claimed her late husband
Harvey Gudmundson was exposed to the defendant's asbestos-
insulated steam turbines while serving on the USS Bausell with
the U.S. Navy in the early 1950s.

In 2006, a jury decided in favor of defendants Georgia Pacific
and Bondex International in claimant Anita O'Connell's lawsuit
alleging her mesothelioma developed from washing her husband's
and sons' work clothing between 1966 and 1970. Her family owned a
plastering business, and she would shake the clothing before
laundering them, increasing her exposure.

In October 2007, the jury entered a verdict favoring defendant
National Lead, which was blamed for causing claimant John
Larson's illness. The suit alleges William Larson, John's
Larson's father, brought asbestos home on his clothing, which
would become airborne, resulting in John Larson's asbestos
exposure.

National Lead was thrown back into the spotlight in 2008 when
claimant Harry Glass alleged his late wife Mary Glass was exposed
to asbestos dust he brought home from work from 1952 to 1978
while working at the Granite City, Ill., lead plant.

National Lead did not call a single witness to the stand to
testify in its defense, but still won a verdict after two hours
of deliberations.

Defendant Home Builders Supply won its first Madison County
defense verdict in December 2009. Claimant Terry Stephens alleged
he was exposed to asbestos-containing products while working with
boilers and turbines.

Then in March 2010, jurors entered a verdict favoring defendant
Ford Motor Company, which was blamed for contributing to claimant
Larry Williams' mesothelioma with its asbestos-containing brake
products.

In November, defendant Georgia Pacific won its third victory in a
Madison County asbestos trial after jurors found in its favor.
The lawsuit alleged that claimant James Reef, a carpenter,
developed mesothelioma after using the defendant's asbestos-
containing joint compound while performing drywall work.

Lastly, jurors decided in favor of defendant Crane Co. in a
former U.S. Navy machinist mate's lawsuit alleging his exposure
to asbestos-containing gasket material contributed to his
development of mesothelioma.

In response to the recent defense verdicts in Madison County,
personal injury attorney Patrick Haines of Napoli, Bern, Ripka &
Shkolnik -- a New York-based law firm that opened an office in
Madison County in 2012 -- said the "Judicial Hellholes"
reputation that can be attributed to a prior era in the local
asbestos docket is no longer applicable, calling the label
"unfair."  He added that asbestos cases are judged on the facts,
resulting in a fair jurisdiction.

"Whenever you say 'Judicial Hellhole,' it makes it sound like
people aren't getting justice, which just isn't true," Haines
said.

ATRA Director of Communications Darren McKinney and Brickman
agreed that Madison County's notoriously plaintiff-friendly
asbestos docket can be attributed to former Judge Nicholas Byron,
who "accommodated the plaintiff's bar in virtually every
conceivable way," Brickman said.

"He was corrupt as the day is long," Brickman said.

"He was so shamelessly plaintiff-friendly that it was almost
instantaneous that the local attorneys came to understand that,
'This was a place where we could have our way,'" McKinney added.

McKinney said that the "Big Bang" of asbestos litigation in
Madison County arose when Byron would run his court
disadvantaging defendants, resulting in a rise in case filings
and plaintiffs firms and a crowded docket.

"When Judge Byron retired, the expectation was that there would
be a significant change in the docket and defendants would be
given a much fairer shake," Brickman said, "but that turned out
to be pretty short-lived."

However, the appeal in Madison County's asbestos docket can also
be attributed to Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder for assigning all
trial dates "to a handful of law firms that coincidentally
provided financial support for her political campaigns," Brickman
added.

"Trial slots in Madison County are like gold," Brickman said,
"because most asbestos cases don't settle until the plaintiff has
a trial date."

"Now the trial dates are assigned in a more equitable manner," he
added.

Several defense attorneys agreed that Madison County's asbestos
docket began in the late 1980s with mass filings of asbestos
suits against local industries. They were filed as a result of
union-provided cancer screenings that suggested possible asbestos
conditions.

In order to meet the two-year statute of limitations rule,
several thousand asbestos lawsuits were filed all at once.

"After a while, there was an administrative system established in
Madison County. In addition, people could get their cases out on
the plaintiff's side fairly quickly," said Raymond Fournie of the
Armstrong Teasdale law firm.

In fact, Fournie said cases filed in Cook County, Ill., could
take roughly six years before going to trial, making
jurisdictions like Madison County more appealing, calling it a
"Rocket Docket."

"It's an organized system that allows for quick resolution of
cases, meaning expedited trial settings," said Kent Plotner of
the Heyl Royster law firm.

According to Illinois law, cases filed by claimants with terminal
cancer who are more than 70 years old may have their cases
expedited in order to get a trial setting six to seven months
after filing, Fournie continued.

Haines said that Madison County also offers efficiency, which can
be appealing for asbestos litigation. He added that bringing an
asbestos case in what some would consider its proper jurisdiction
can be like "reinventing the wheel every time" when the court
does not have experience with such lawsuits.

"When you are dealing with mass tort cases, the appeal is
efficiency," Haines said, "looking for where the judges have
experience and have a process to get cases moving orderly at low
cost."

Madison County is sufficient and predictable, which is reassuring
for both parties so they know what to expect, he continued.

"Even the little things magnify when you have a large volume of
cases," Haines said.

Ultimately, Haines addressed accusations that the firm was drawn
to it as a result of its plaintiff-friendly reputation.

"I think the misconception is that somehow the cases are filed in
Madison County because we think this is a pro-plaintiff
jurisdiction," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Majority of Scottish Schools
------------------------------------------------------------
PAB News reported that recent studies have shown that a worrying
number of schools may still be harbouring dangerous levels of
asbestos left over from decades of bad building design. A report
from the Coventry Telegraph has uncovered that fact that, from
the 96 schools that the Coventry city council currently own and
run, 50 still contain asbestos materials. This includes 44
primary schools that contain the deadly substance, which could
still be a threat to teachers and students in these buildings.

Asbestos was used in many buildings from the fifties onwards,
right up until it was banned in the mid-eighties. It was used in
insulation, fire protection, partitions and tiling, in almost all
areas of the schools. Thousands of people are still paying the
price for the use of asbestos in buildings, with about 4,500
deaths linked to asbestos each year. The HSE does say that, as
long as the asbestos materials are not disturbed then they pose
no risk to life and all of the buildings, including schools, in
the Coventry area have been surveyed and assessed for potential
risks relating to asbestos. There are strict rules for schools in
the management of the asbestos areas, and any extra work or
refurbishment that the school wants to do on the area containing
the asbestos has to follow these guidelines, and the work has to
be carried out by trained and certified professionals.

However, these asbestos areas can still pose a risk to both staff
and pupils at the schools. Though safe if left intact, if the
materials degrade over time, or are disturbed or damaged, as may
well be possible in a school, the particles can become dislodged
and go airborne, posing serious hazard to life. Though a lot of
work has been performed recently to manage asbestos and perform
extensive surveys on these structures, years of working with the
substance could have endangered teachers, students and staff. In
particular, there is a hazard for educational professionals and
ancillary staff who have worked in these building over the last
few decades. Recently, a school caretaker from Romsey in
Hampshire recently died from asbestos-related illnesses, thought
to be linked to his years working in numerous schools around the
county. Graham Gale, 62, died from malignant mesothelioma, a
condition known to be caused by the inhalation of asbestos
particles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Horwich Residents Air Fears Over Loco Works Devt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine O'Flynn, writing for The Bolton News, reported that
contamination by asbestos, further traffic disruption and the
lack of schools were discussed by residents in Horwich, England,
at a meeting about the proposed development of the former Loco
Works site.

More than 150 people packed into a function room at the Horwich
RMI club to hear about the Rivington Chase scheme, which if
approved will see a new "town" of 1,700 new homes built on
brownfield land.

Developers Horwich Vision said it believes the proposals could
regenerate the area and bring in an extra GBP19 million to local
business.  But at the open meeting, people voiced opposition,
saying the council and planners were not listening to their
concerns over the increased pressure of traffic and the potential
risk to health, due to the "unknown" level of asbestos in the
former factory ground.

Horwich Vision said it planned to spend GBP200,000 investigating
contamination by asbestos and cyanide deposits in the area --
which has about 160 bore holes -- and is working with three
former workers to find the areas most affected.

But Barry Jubb, who lives downhill from the development, said the
risk of potential future birth deformities was substantial.  He
added: "We are talking about moving hundreds and hundreds of
tonnes of this stuff, and we don't know where it is. You can't
take the risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Wins 6-Figure Payout Over Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Robinson, writing for Kent Online, reported that widow of
a former council worker in Swale, England, who died of an
asbestos-related cancer is set to receive a payout of more than
GBP128,000.

Edward 'Ted' Jacobs died of mesothelioma aged 77 in November 2011
-- less than a month after finding out he had the industrial
disease.

The grandfather-of-six worked for Swale District Council and then
Swale Borough Council as a painter and decorator between 1976 and
1990.

Before his death, Mr Jacobs - of Albany Road, Sittingbourne -
said he remembered working with guttering and Artex, which
contained the deadly substance, at various properties throughout
the area including schools, hospitals and council houses.

In the final years of his employment, Mr Jacobs refused to work
with guttering containing the hidden killer as he was concerned
about the impact it could have on his health after hearing about
the risks.

But it was too late, as the damage had already been done.

His wife Anita launched a legal battle to find out more about
what happened to her husband with help from Irwin Mitchell
Solicitors.

The firm has secured a settlement of GBP128,575 from the local
authority's former insurers.

The 70-year-old, who now lives in Norfolk, said: "Ted started
struggling with breathing difficulties and after having some
scans was sent for a biopsy.

"He was told he had mesothelioma and less than a month later he
died.

"I remember he disliked working with the asbestos gutters. He had
to clean them and scrape away debris that was inside..." - Anita
Jacobs
"We knew he wouldn't have very long left, but it was devastating
when he passed away so soon.

"We didn't have any time to come to terms with his illness.

"I remember he disliked working with the asbestos gutters. He had
to clean them and scrape away debris that was inside.

"By the end of his time at the council, he had heard about the
dangers of asbestos so refused to work on asbestos gutters any
longer. It's just so sad that it was too late."

Alice Humphreys, who represented Mrs Jacobs, said: "At the time
of Ted's employment, employers were well aware of the dangers of
asbestos, and by the end of his career so was he, but a failure
to provide him with proper protective equipment had fatal
consequences."

Cllr Ted Wilcox, cabinet member for performance and staffing,
said: "Our thoughts and sympathy remain with the family.

"We can confirm we have agreed a settlement regarding exposure to
asbestos-based materials.

"This concerns employment from 1974 until 1990, nearly 24 years
ago.

"Building materials containing asbestos became increasingly
popular in the early 1900s and were most widely used between the
1960s and 1980s in a range of materials including roofing, floor
tiles and insulating boards.

"We now have very strict procedures and training in place for
council staff and partner agencies."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Say Wis. Lawsuit Bill Denies Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bauer, writing for Insurance Journal, reported that
veterans opposed to a bill affecting asbestos-exposure lawsuits
in Wisconsin urged Gov. Scott Walker to stop the measure, arguing
that it would deny justice to asbestos victims.

The heavily lobbied proposal would require plaintiffs who have
suffered from asbestos exposure to reveal how many businesses
their attorneys plan to sue. They would also have to go after
money from an asbestos trust before they could sue for more in
court.

Proponents, including Wisconsin's chamber of commerce and
Republican sponsors, argue the bill is needed to prevent filing
multiple claims against both trust funds set up to pay victims of
asbestos exposure as well as individual businesses.

Opponents strongly disagreed.

"If you think that the bill is protecting the rights of victims,
it is not. It is about protecting corporations," said a tearful
Renee Simpson, state commander of the Wisconsin Veterans of
Foreign Wars. She held up a picture of her dad, a U.S. Army
veteran, who died in 2013 nine months after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

The Senate passed the bill on a narrow 17-16 vote. A similar
version previously passed the Assembly and it's expected to pass
again on the last day of the session, which would send it to
Walker.

While Walker hasn't said yet whether he would sign or veto the
bill, his spokeswoman issued a statement signaling that he may
support it.

"It is important to note this bill is about ensuring transparency
in the lawsuit process to stop trial lawyers from double
dipping," said Walker spokeswoman Jocelyn Webster. "Preventing
double dipping will help make sure there will be resources
available for the truly injured down the road."

The issue has divided veterans. Steve Chesna, state commander of
AMVETS, sent a letter in January supporting the bill, saying it
will ensure that "valuable resources are not depleted by
unscrupulous lawyers convincing clients to double and triple dip
for one individual for one claim."

That concern over plaintiffs suing both businesses and the trust
funds in order to maximize their awards has been the rallying cry
of proponents from the beginning, said Jason Johns, legislative
officer for the Wisconsin Military Order of the Purple Heart.

But under changes made to the bill by the Senate "there's no way
to hide a claim," Johns said. The bill now requires those
bringing a lawsuit to disclose within 30 days whether they are
also seeking money from a trust, Johns said.

The bill originally required there to be a six-month delay before
a trial could start, after a claim was stated, but the Senate
removed that. Now it is all about disclosing multiple claims,
said its sponsor, Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend.

"I don't know what anyone would object to," he said.

Asbestos, a building material linked with cancer and other health
problems, has been the subject of lawsuits awarding billions of
dollars in damages. As health concerns became clearer, and the
number of lawsuits swelled, companies forced into bankruptcy
because of asbestos litigation transferred their assets and
liabilities to trusts established to pay current and future
asbestos victims.

At least 100 companies have gone into bankruptcy in part from
liabilities tied to asbestos, according to a 2011 Government
Accountability Office report. There are 60 asbestos trusts, with
about $37 billion in assets, according to the GAO report.

Opponents of the bill, including Senate Democrats who were united
against it, said it is designed to slow lawsuits down in the
hopes plaintiffs will die and thereby protect corporations from
making payouts.

In addition to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, other
opponents include the Wisconsin Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Wisconsin American Legion, the trial attorney group the Wisconsin
Association for Justice and the Wisconsin AFL-CIO.

Supporters, including Republican sponsors in the Legislature,
have argued that trial lawyers who bring the lawsuits are the
ones who are most opposed to the changes and are using veterans
as shields in the debate.

Records from the Government Accountability Board show that nearly
2,000 hours were spent by supporters and opponents to lobby
lawmakers on the bill last year alone. Records for this year so
far have not yet been filed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Many U.S. Workers at High-Risk to Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laywers and Settlements reported that many workplaces in the US
are now considered to have put workers at high-risk for asbestos
exposure -- decades ago. These include: US Navy, oil refineries,
shipyards, chemical manufacturing facilities, aerospace
manufacturing facilities, mines, smelters, coal fired power
plants, construction work sites, auto repair shops, plumbers,
welders, electricians, and most manufacturing, or industrial
plants that were operating in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.

Sadly, many individuals who served in the US Navy, worked at a
power plant, an oil refinery, or a shipyard decades ago are now
being diagnosed with asbestos disease -- the average age of
diagnosis of asbestos mesothelioma is 72 years, according to the
Centers for Disease Control, (CDC).

Although strict regulations about the use of asbestos have been
put in place, the potential for asbestos exposure remains. In
2009, the CDC reported:

"Although asbestos has been eliminated in the manufacture of many
products, it is still being imported (approximately 1,730 metric
tons in 2007) and used in the United States in various
construction and transportation products. Ensuring a future
decrease in mesothelioma mortality requires meticulous control of
exposures to asbestos and other materials that might cause
mesothelioma. Recent studies suggest that carbon nanotubes
(fiber-shaped nanoparticles), which are increasingly being used
in manufacturing, might share the carcinogenic mechanism
postulated for asbestos and induce mesothelioma, underscoring the
need for documentation of occupational history in future cases."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Sues EI DuPont for Ex-Worker's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
Laywers and Settlements reported that the family of recently
deceased William Ray Furlong have filed an asbestos lawsuit
against EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. alleging the company is
responsible for Mr. Furlong's asbestos illness and subsequent
death.

Virginia Furlong, wife, and Helen Furlong Moity, daughter, allege
Dupont knowingly exposed William Furlong to toxic and
carcinogenic dusts including asbestos during the time he worked
at Dupont's Works Facility in Beaumont.

According to the suit, William Furlong developed mesothelioma
from which he died in 2012.

The Furlongs are seeking more than $100,000 in damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $3-Mil. Awarded to Mesothelioma Victim
-------------------------------------------------------
Laywers and Settlements reported that a $3 million settlement has
been awarded to the family of a man who contracted and died from
asbestos mesothelioma.

According to the lawsuit, the deceased, Gerald Suttner, worked at
the GM Powertrain Facility in Tonawanda, New York, and involved
repairing valves manufactured by Crane and other manufacturers,
valves which contained asbestos gaskets and packing materials. It
wasn't until after Suttner had retired from the GM plant that he
was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. He passed away just 12
months later, at the age of 77. Suttner's family subsequently
sued the companies which made asbestos-containing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missed Fibro Irks Waterloo City Council
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Jamison, writing for WCF Courier, reported that removal of
the former Operation Threshold building, in Waterloo, Indiana, is
back on track after a three-month delay.  But city officials
aren't happy about paying to remove additional asbestos not found
during a survey of the building at 300 W. Third St.

City Council members voted 6-0 to approve paying $35,975 on top
of the initial $43,948 contract with Active Thermal Concepts, of
Hiawatha, to remove cancer-causing asbestos material from the
building so it can be demolished in the future.

Chris Western, of the city planning office, said a survey of the
building conducted by Cardno ATC, of Waterloo, missed four layers
of asbestos-laden tar paper on the building's built-up roof.

Active Thermal Concepts, hired to remove the asbestos which was
noted in the survey, found the extra material when working in
December and the project was put on hold.

Councilman Quentin Hart said he "reluctantly" supported the
contract change order because the material would have to be
removed anyway.

"But I wanted to know how they (Cardno) could have missed that
much," Hart said.

Mayor Buck Clark said the city did investigate whether it could
hold Cardno responsible for the additional removal but determined
it was probably more costly to rebid the entire project.

"We have gone through legal maneuvering and wrangling with our
attorneys and their attorneys," Clark said.

Officials with Cardno ATC were not available for comment.

Western said the situation has prompted the city to require core
samples on roofs in the future when buildings are being assessed
for asbestos.

The city voted last October to buy the Operation Threshold
building for $400,000. When Active Thermal Concepts completes the
asbestos abatement the city expects to seek bids to raze the
structure.  The property is planned to be a small parking lot for
users of the adjacent SportsPlex field house and a fenced outdoor
play area for kids at the SportsPlex day care center.

Delays in the removal of the building have caused some
inconvenience for the SportsPlex.

"We are managing the field house entry for now, but the parking
and improved appearance of that entrance will make a huge
improvement," said Mark Gallagher, recreation services manager at
the facility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Led to Fatal Cancer
-----------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a pensioner died after she was
exposed to asbestos, an inquest heard.  Patricia Wieland died at
her home at The Bucklers, Milford on Sea, on January 14 this year
of right-sided epithelioid mesothelioma.

The Southampton inquest heard that Mrs Wieland had worked for
Boots, the chemist many years ago until she left that job in the
1970s.  In a statement before she died, Mrs Wieland told how the
Victorian building where she worked, in Walsall, West Midlands,
had a network of hot water and heating pipes lagged with
asbestos, the inquest heard.

The inquest heard the 65-year-old had spent a lot of time there
stock checking and replacing stock.  Mrs Wieland was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in 2009.

A verdict of death from industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Honolulu Hale
---------------------------------------------
Manolo Morales, writing for KHon2.com, reported that there's fear
that city leaders in Honolulu, Hawaii, and the general public may
have been exposed to asbestos.

KHON2 wanted to know how this happened and what city officials
plan to do to fix the problem.  KHON2 was told that this asbestos
problem should have been fixed years ago. So now some
councilmembers say they want to make sure it finally gets done.

Renovations to the City Council chamber on the third floor of
Honolulu Hale have started.

With the building more than 80 years old, there's always concern
with asbestos dust flying around when walls and tiles are taken
out.  There was concern that a door leading to the offices of
staff members may not have been properly sealed during
construction and that could possibly expose asbestos to the staff
and the public.

Councilmember Stanley Chang says the work should never have been
done at all.

"Now that they've sort of opened Pandora's Box what do you do?"
KHON2 asked.

"We absolutely should not be finishing the renovation leaving the
public health and safety in danger," said Chang.

Councilmember Ann Kobayashi says she's raised concerns about
asbestos in the building for more than ten years.

"Are you worried that people that your staff people in the
building have been inhaling this for years?" KHON2 asked.

"That's what I've been saying that there's asbestos and mold,"
said Kobayashi.

She says she put in $14 million in the budget to fix the problem
in 2003, but it was never done.

"So it was the administration then?" asked KHON2.

"Yes the administration used the money to clean up some other
areas. I don't know but they didn't clean up the city council
areas." explained Kobayashi.

Kobayashi says she wants get another estimate to see if it can
finally get done. She points out that that the general public
visit regularly to testify. Even school children sometimes take
tours of the historic building.

"But do we have the money for it?" asked KHON2.

"You know when it comes to health and safety we're gonna have to
do it because it's not just our health and safety it's all the
members of the public," Kobayashi said.

A spokesman for the city says it has taken procedures to limit
the possible exposure and the renovation was actually requested
by city councilmembers.

The price tag for the renovation is $21,000. It's not clear if
it'll go up after the asbestos discovery.  Air samples were
taken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Threat to Scotland's Woodland
---------------------------------------------------------
Herald Scotland reported that asbestos, builders' waste and a
deflated paddling pool, all items you would expect to see in a
municipal dump, not in precious woodland.  But they are just some
of the things that have been dumped in the Woodland Trust
Scotland's woods, which the charity disposes at the cost of
thousands of pounds a year.

On International Day of the Forests, the trust asked members of
the public to visit a wood, pledge to plant a tree, or simply
pick up litter.  The total cost to the charity of dealing with
fly tipping and clearing litter within its woods in Scotland
since 2011 is around GBP30,000. There is a particular problem in
the urban woods in Glenrothes and Livingston.

Carol Evans, director of the Woodland Trust Scotland, said: "Fly
tipping is illegal and it costs us thousands of pounds to deal
with, which could be spent on conserving our woods and improving
them for visitors.

"Scotland's trees and woods face an unprecedented level of threat
from pests, diseases and development. We need people to help
protect them, rather than add to the problem by dumping their
waste in them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students Concerned About Fibro at School
---------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Fazal, writing for KSDK.com, reported that thick plastic
and an asbestos sign are the barriers that block the bridge
between Roxana, Illinois, junior and senior high schools.

Students use the little hallway every day, but they had to take a
detour. The area was quarantined because construction workers
mistakenly started working on installing air conditioning units
in an asbestos contaminated area. The area was scheduled for
asbestos treatment this summer.

Students saw the quarantined area and got worried.

"I thought I was on the set of a movie scene where they were
quarantining things," said one student. He asked not to be
identified.

Superintendent Debbie Kreutztrager said the area was cordoned off
before school and staff even made it to school in the morning.

"Student safety is our number one concern so we quarantined it
off and got the consultants in. We wanted to take every
precautionary measure to contain that area so it could be
thoroughly cleaned," she said. She added that there's no risk to
students.

Environmental consultants tested the air. The results will be
back soon.

The construction company will have to pay for the cleanup costs
to the asbestos affected areas. The hallway will be open again.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockland's Sain Bldg. Gets Weekend Fibro Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Incalcaterra, writing for The Journal News, reported that a
remediation crew was to spend a weekend cleaning up asbestos that
forced the relocation of Rockland County employees as a safety
precaution.

Inspections by the county and the state Public Employee Safety
and Health Bureau, part of the Department of Labor, found no
friable, or frayed, material, which can pose health risks,
spokesman Scott Salotto said.

The county accepted bids for the asbestos remediation work, which
will cost $15,600. The county will make plumbing repairs in-
house, Salotto said.

About five workers and eight desks were moved away from where an
asbestos-wrapped water heating pipe was found to be leaking. The
pipe has continued to leak onto a drop-ceiling tile and then onto
the floor, Salotto said.

The leak occurred on the fourth floor of the Sain building in
offices housing the Personnel Department. Maintenance in the
1960s building at 18 New Hempstead Road has been a challenge over
the years and has involved ventilation, electrical and disabled-
accessibility issues.

A plumber will repair the leaking pipe then new carpet will be
installed, Salotto said.

Asbestos is a group of minerals that used to be added to many
products because it is strong, fire-resistant and relatively
inexpensive. Until the 1960s, it was commonly used as insulation
in homes, schools and businesses. Many industrial workers,
including people who worked in shipyards and power plants, were
exposed before the risks were fully recognized.

Asbestos is dangerous when it becomes friable, which releases
microscopic fibers into the air that can be inhaled. The fibers
can scar the lungs, leading to asbestosis, a condition marked by
difficulty breathing and heart failure. Exposure also may
increase risk for other illnesses, including several types of
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cigarettes Made of Fibro, Feces Seized
-------------------------------------------------------
Becky Parker, writing for Weston, Worle & Somerset Mercury,
reported that the illegal cigarettes are also more likely to
cause a fatal blaze, according to expert firefighters and trading
standards officials -- and the trade could even be funding
organised crime.

The banned cigarettes, which were seized by the North Somerset
Council's trading standards team, have failed vital safety tests.
The Palace and Jim Royal brands were removed last year from
outlets in Weston and the surrounding area as part of an ongoing
investigation.  Since November 2011 all cigarettes in the UK must
be able to self-extinguish once lit to avoid accidental, but
potentially fatal, house fires.

Councillor Peter Bryant, the council's executive member for
trading standards, said illegal cigarettes do not comply with
this standard due to a lack of quality control during their
manufacture.  He said: "Illegal cigarettes and hand-rolling
tobacco have been found to contain asbestos, ground glass, rat
and mouse droppings, dead insects, floor sweepings, dust and hay.

"Illegal tobacco, sold at pocket-money prices, makes it all too
easy for our children to obtain and become addicted to smoke.

"Far from being a victimless crime, the illegal tobacco trade
makes it easier for children to start smoking, takes advantage of
cash-strapped families, and helps fund organised crime.

"People selling cheap, illegal tobacco are likely to be selling
other things illegally -- for example drugs, fake branded goods
and alcohol -- exposing our children to more dangers."

Avon Fire and Rescue Service attended 37 accidental house fires
caused by smoking from April 2013 to January this year.

According to the service's area manager, Mick Dixon, smoking is
the biggest cause of fire deaths in homes in the UK.

Andrea Dickens, deputy director Smokefree South West, said: "Of
course there's no such thing as a safe cigarette, but illegal
tobacco and cigarettes are completely unregulated.

"They can be counterfeit, often made by organised criminals and
there is no way of knowing what is in them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Hall on Fire in Meadowfield, Durham
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Westcott, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that three
fire crews and an aerial ladder are currently at the scene of a
fire in St John's Church Hall on the A690 at Meadowfield, near
Durham.  The hall, measuring 40 by 20 metres is described as
"well alight".

Two crews initially responded from Durham and on arrival
requested a third crew plus an aerial ladder platform.  Two house
reel jets are in use as well as breathing apparatus. Asbestos is
also suspected to be involved in the blaze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Fight Unsealing of Info in Garlock
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a group
that represents claimants harmed by asbestos says two recent
requests for sealed information that led to a landmark ruling in
Garlock Sealing Technologies' bankruptcy case should have to
wait.

On March 14, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants asked a bankruptcy judge to strike Legal Newsline's
most recent request for access to evidence submitted during a
2013 trial.

That evidence led U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges to rule
that plaintiffs attorneys had been withholding their clients'
exposure evidence in order to maximize recovery against Garlock
in civil lawsuits.

Legal Newsline and Ford Motor Company are both seeking the
evidence cited by Hodges in his January ruling. Honeywell joined
Ford's motion.

During the 2013 trial, Legal Newsline appealed Hodges' decision
to close the courtroom to the public. That appeal is pending in
U.S. District Court.

"The central issue before the District Court in the appeal is the
same issue that Legal Newsline's Second Motion purports to place
-- again -- before this Court: the extent, if any, to which the
public has a right of access to the Estimation Hearing," the
committee argued in its response.

"Specifically, Legal Newsline's Second Motion argues that the
public has a right of access to certain testimony and exhibits
received by the Bankruptcy Court during closed portions of the
Estimation Hearing that underlie certain findings made by this
Court in its Order Estimating Aggregate Liability.

"Plainly, the key issues in the Appeal and the Second Motion are
the same . . .  This Court was divested of subject matter
jurisdiction over the Second Motion when Legal Newsline filed its
Notice of Appeal."

Hodges was tasked with determining how much money Garlock should
put in a trust for present and future asbestos claims.  His
January order spurned asbestos attorneys who requested Garlock
place more than $1 billion in the trust.

Hodges instead ruled that the amount of previous awards and
settlements paid by the company in the civil justice system were
not reliable because plaintiffs attorneys had withheld exposure
evidence in order to maximize recovery against Garlock.  He ruled
that Garlock needed to put $125 million in its bankruptcy trust
and that math produced by plaintiffs attorneys wasn't reliable
because Garlock had suffered large jury verdicts as a result of
claimants previously focusing their lawsuits on Garlock while
losing evidence to other asbestos exposure in the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford, a frequent defendant in asbestos suits, is seeking the same
information referenced in Hodges' order as Legal Newsline is. It
is wondering if, like Garlock, it has paid more than it should
have.

The committee's response to Ford's motion says the company has
presented questions that are pending in Legal Newsline's appeal.

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

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

Health insurer Aetna is also seeking access to certain records
because it says it has subrogation rights against Garlock for
health care costs it has paid to those it insures who were harmed
by Garlock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust at 21 Francophone Schools Cleaned Up
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that parents of students in the Francophone
North-East school district, in Canada, are breathing a little
easier, now that asbestos in several of the schools has been
cleaned up.

A recent environmental review found asbestos levels high enough
to warrant removal at 21 of 38 schools in the district.  Ecole La
Croisee, built in the 1970s, was among the list of schools, said
principal Josee Gaudet.  Staff and parents were told of the issue
soon after it was discovered, and while the threat was minor,
many parents were alarmed.  Some brought their concerns to the
district, while others went to the parent council, headed by
Amelie-Maude Boucher.

"I was, in the beginning, a little bit scared because you're
aware of everything that's going on with that kind of chemical
product. But right in the beginning, we were reassured," said
Boucher.

She was told the asbestos content was low, that it would be
cleaned up quickly, and that there was little risk to her two
children.

"You cannot be obsessed with that because that means you can be
obsessed with Windex, with any cleaning products you have in your
house. Because all of these are chemical products at well," she
said.

The evaluation at Ecole La Croisee found crumbling or damaged
floor tiles, exposing students to the chemicals inside. The old
tiles have since been replaced.

Renovations at other schools have ranged from minor repairs to
plumbing upgrades -- all done after school hours.

It's not yet known how much the repairs have cost, said district
spokesperson Annie Levesque.

It was a complete overhaul of one of the district schools on the
Acadian Peninsula last year that prompted administration to take
a closer look at its buildings, instead of the current visual
evaluations by janitorial staff, she said.

"The last ones from an expert firm was in 2004 so that's why,
after Pokemouche, that we wanted to have the list of 21 schools
with asbestos materials in them evaluated," said Levesque.

District officials say there are no reports of unsafe exposure to
date and that they will continue to monitor the region's aging
schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Continues to Ripple Effect
--------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Nicholson, writing for WAToday, reported that asbestos may
have been banned from Australian manufacturing since the mid-
1980s but the effects continue to be felt beyond the initial
victims and decades after the prohibition of the deadly fibres.

The Asbestos Narratives, released by Southern Cross University,
considered the social and psychological impacts of the asbestos
disease and, of all groups facing challenges, the disease had a
greater impact on women.

"Women are likely to form a significant proportion of the
emerging third wave of exposure to asbestos and may suffer
considerable hardship as a result," project leader and the
university's director of Regional Initiative for Social
Innovation and Research, Associate Professor Rick van der Zwan
said.

"The medical effects of this disease are well researched, but
little has been known about the social, psychological and
economic implications for those diagnosed, their careers and
their families.

"Exposure to asbestos can result in a range of debilitating
diseases, all of which can leave people physically and socially
isolated."

One of the key aspects of the project was the development of an
online peer-to-peer support group for individuals with a
diagnosed asbestos disease, for their careers and for their
families.

"What we found was that people with asbestos-related diagnosis,
and their careers, were often socially isolated and looking for a
way to connect with people in similar situations, regardless of
their location.

"This was particular important for people in regional areas, who
had limited access to formal support groups.

"An important part of our research showed that emerging
technology has the potential to reduce the social impact of an
asbestos-related disease."

Professor van der Zwan said he hoped the findings of the report
would inform policy makers and the future provision of services
and support.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson
welcomed the findings in the report.

"This study highlights the plight of victims who are in isolated
areas, plus their families and carers who are also impacted by
somebody with an asbestos-related disease.

"With the help of other people with the same problems, they can
get together via the internet and support each other."

Slater and Gordon senior asbestos lawyer Joanne Wade said similar
studies and further investment in medical research would educate
the public about the deadly dust.

"This report will help raise greater awareness about the
devastating impacts asbestos diseases have on families and
society as a whole," Ms Wade said.

"We see first-hand how families are affected by asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Crisis at Lords
-------------------------------------------
Rosanna Candler, writing for Western Suburbs Weekly, reported
that asbestos fibres were found at Lords recreation centre,
prompting the City of Subiaco, in Perth, Australia, to close the
facility indefinitely.

Following recent maintenance work on its asbestos roof, an
independent expert found three of 20 surface samples tested
positive for asbestos.  The hazardous locations were in
undisturbed areas such as on top of walls and not accessible to
the members of the public.

Main use and public areas did not test positive for asbestos.

Subiaco chief executive Stephen Tindale said the City closed
Lords as a "precautionary measure" because their priority was the
safety of its users, staff and tenants.

"Further testing by an independent expert, including airborne
sampling, is underway and Lords will remain closed until the City
is assured that the centre is safe," Mr Tindale said.

The City has engaged a public relations team, legal advisors and
insurers to manage the crisis. Subiaco councillors will discuss
the matter at their meeting tonight.

The asbestos roof, which covers 75 per cent of the centre, is
recorded on Subiaco's Asbestos Register.

Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia president Robert Vojakovic
said he was shocked that "such a rich council" had not already
made the "common sense" decision to remove the asbestos roof.

"An asbestos roof is an appalling risk, even if it is closely
monitored," Mr Vojakovic said.

"The average residential roof would release two or three billion
fibres a day and the larger the roof, the more fibres.

"This is a potential environmental disaster. An asbestos roof is
like an unexploded bomb -- you don't just close down the
building, you defuse the bomb. You remove it."

Range of Motion health and fitness director Dan Williams said he
was training clients when they were told to vacate the building
within 10 minutes.

Mr Williams said tenants would meet Lords' management to discuss
the length of the closure.

"Lords and the City of Subiaco have been really helpful; they got
straight on to everything," he said.

"There is this nagging question in the back of my mind of how
critical this all is, thinking 'will this come back in 20 years
and impact people?'.

"It makes it tough to run a business, but given the choice
between losing a bit of money and looking after my staff and
clients' health, well, I would close for a year if it came down
to that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Khyber Fibro Risks Don't Concern Heritage Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the city of Halifax, in Nova Scotia, has
told the tenants of the city-owned Khyber building they have to
leave because there's asbestos in the walls, but not all tenants
are concerned.

In December, the Halifax Regional Municipality had the building
assessed and found the plaster raised "safety concerns related to
the presence of asbestos and lead."

In February, the municipality gave notice to vacate the building
due to those health concerns.

The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia is one of the Khyber's tenants
and said it doesn't think the city's solution is reasonable. It
wants to stay in its heritage home.

Linda Forbes, president of the Heritage Trust, said the society
knows about the asbestos, but isn't too concerned.

"We're comfortable that the areas where we're working don't have
active asbestos -- asbestos isn't being released into the air,"
she said.

Two out of 38 samples taken in the Khyber showed asbestos. Forbes
said affected areas could be patched over, or restricted.

Coun. Waye Mason said that may not be realistic.

"An entire wall may not have asbestos, but that one patch that's
about to fail and is dropping dust into the air -- that might
have been done at a time when there was asbestos mixed in with
the plaster," he said.

Mason said renovations that might send asbestos into the air
can't take place if tenants are still inside. Forbes said the
public should not automatically assume that old buildings are
dangerous.

"We find asbestos in buildings in the 80s, buildings in the 50s,"
she said.

Mason said there's a different standard for this building.

"The level of risk that we can accept in a public building that
has people coming in and out of it is really, really different
from what someone might accept in their home," he said.

Risk or not, the Heritage Trust says it will move out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup at Paterson Armory Moves Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico, writing for Paterson Press, reported that
officials of the city of Paterson, New Jersey, are looking to
hire a company to help them remove asbestos from inside the
Paterson Armory, a preliminary step in an effort to reopen a
recreation facility that has been closed for more than two
decades.

"The overall plan is to get our jewel back in shape so our city
can use it again," said Mayor Jeffery Jones, who made the revival
of the Armory one of the goals of his administration.

Jones said developers and other groups have been reluctant to
take on the renovation of the Armory because of its
contamination. "Nobody wants to touch it until we have a clean
building," said Jones. "This is something that should have been
done a long time ago."

Four engineering firms submitted bids on March 14 for preparing
the asbestos removal plans. Their proposed prices ranged from
$16,750 for the LEW Corporation of Mountainside to $136,700 for
Pennoni Associates of Edison, according to municipal purchasing
director Harry Cevallos. Paterson now has 60 days to pick one of
the companies for the job.

After the design work is done, the city then must hire a company
for the more costly task of removing the asbestos.

Councilman Kenneth Morris questioned the wisdom of spending
scarce municipal funds on the asbestos removal before the city
has found an investor willing to redevelop the building. "We
can't do this in patchwork fashion," said Morris. "This should be
done as one complete plan. If there's a plan, what's step two? I
haven't heard it."

Two years ago, at Jones' request, the Paterson Parking Authority
produced artist renderings of what the Armory could look like as
the result of an ambitious renovation that officials estimate
would cost as much as $45 million.

After those drawings were done, city leaders created the Paterson
Armory Development Corporation, a nonprofit organization that was
supposed to raise money for the facility's revival. But so far,
officials say the contamination issues have gotten in the way of
progress on the project.

Jones said the issues at the Armory reflect a citywide challenge.
Environmental issues complicate almost every development effort
being pushed by the city, Jones said.

"Of course, we know we're the first planned industrial city, but
what that means is we have all the ills of being the first
planned industrial city," the mayor said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Storm Lake High to Remove Fibro in Skylights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schafer, writing for Storm Lake Pilot-Tribune, reported that
as the high school renovation project continues on, there have
been a few discoveries that will be fixed as the renovation
project continues to move forward.

In the hallways of the High School are a series of skylights that
were installed when the high school was originally built. Through
the course of the renovation construction the construction crews
discovered that the skylights had asbestos installed around the
edges of the skylights.

Since asbestos has long been associated with causing cancer, the
School Board would like to have the asbestos removed from the
skylights.

"The crews will be able to remove all the asbestos during one
weekend," Superintendent Dr. Carl Turner said at the March 19
school board meeting. "This won't interrupt any school classes
and the crews will be finished by the time school starts again."

Removal of the asbestos will take place on March 29 and into the
30 if needed.

Lockers are in the process of being brought into the areas of the
school that have already been completed. Superintendent Carl
Turner was faced with a decision to make on the lockers, he could
re-paint the approximately 160 lockers that were previously
removed from the school, or order new lockers.

"It costs in the neighborhood of $25 to repaint the old lockers,"
Dr Turner said at the March 19 School Board meeting. "To get new
lockers it would cost about $160 per group of lockers. So looking
at the cost it would be a lot cheaper to paint a few lockers
rather than to buy all new lockers."

Estimates on how to best paint the old lockers are currently
being gathered by School Board members before a final decision
will be made.

"We aren't ready to enter the 22nd century just yet," Dr. Turner
said about a lighting system proposed for the high school. "We
want to stay in the 21st century for the time being. The
construction company had entered a bid to install Daylight
harvesting lights, which we do not feel like we need at this
time."

The Daylight harvesting lights, that Dr. Turner is talking about,
is a new type of light that changes the intensity of the light
depending on the type and how much light is coming into the room.

Dr Turner felt that regular florescent lights would be enough for
the new parts of the high school at the time being.

Originally, the city had told the school district that they would
not have to use the water pump for the sprinkler system. However
after the latest estimates from the new auditorium show that they
will need to use a water pump in order to ensure that if there
was a fire that the system would have enough water pressure in
order to operate.

Another decision about the auditorium is yet to be made.

"We are putting research into what color fabric we want the seats
of the auditorium to be," Turner said. "We also are trying to
decide on the fabric that will be on those seats as well."

The fire alarm system at the renovated high school could impact
the way that the Iowa Central Community College building's fire
alarms operate. Although they share the building, ICCC is not
being updated, and there are worries that the new fire alarm
system could have an impact on ICCC's fire alarms. The options on
what to be done are being discussed.

Dr. Turner also had a concern about the construction workers at
the high school. There there was a fire alarm set off because of
a steam pipe that was left open. Although no one had to be
evacuated from either the high school or construction zones, it
was noted that the construction crews should be drilled on what
to do when there is a drill within the school.

"We had a lockdown drill, and overall that went really well,"
said high school principal Beau Ruleaux. "During the drill we did
notice that none of the construction crews took part in the
drill. We would like them to know what to do during our drills in
case we needed to have a real drill while they are working with
the school."

Dr. Turner said that he would work with the companies that were
involve so that they can know what to do in case there is a drill
that the construction crews need to be aware of.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lampasas Self-Reports Possible Fibro Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Griffin, writing for Killeen Daily Herald, reported that
the city of Lampasas self-reported a possible asbestos violation
to the Texas Department of Health, officials said during a
Lampasas City Council meeting.

During a previous meeting, resident Heath Eckermann asked if an
asbestos survey was done on a recently destroyed city-owned
building on Spring Street. He said he had requested information
from the city several times, but had not received any.

The council subsequently requested a follow-up on the issue and
sent a letter to the health department requesting clarification
on if the regulations applied, since the building was a single-
home family dwelling.

"During renovation and repair of the Spring Street Pump Station
and Ground Storage Tank, the city utilized multiple contractors,
and in some cases, city personnel was used to keep costs down," a
city report said. "Because city crews were mobilized at the site,
we took advantage of available manpower and equipment to demolish
the house."

The city requested that, if found in violation, the state
department ligate any penalties through training, orientation and
education of city staff.

City Manager Finley DeGraffenried said the building was around
11,000 square feet, and that the city has performed several other
in-regulation demolitions. The process usually cost a thousand to
several thousand dollars, he said, but it was hard to estimate
because the price tag depends on how much asbestos surveyors
find.

The city has not yet heard back the the health department.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that occurs in rocks and soils,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's website,
and is incorporated into many building materials, manufactured
goods and heat-resistant coatings. The EPA began regulating the
material in 1992 to decrease the public's exposure to its major
effects as a carcinogenic. Increased exposure causes lung disease
and forms of lung cancer, the website said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms $6.5MM Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a California appeals court has upheld a Los Angeles County
Superior Court's jury verdict in a commercial plumber's asbestos
lawsuit.

Justice Walter Croskey of the California Second District Court of
Appeals delivered his opinion Feb. 21, affirming a jury verdict
of more than $6.5 million in non-economic damages and $398,635 in
economic damages and denying defendant Crane Co.'s request for a
further setoff to adjust for future settlements.

Justices Joan Klein and Richard Dennis Aldrich concurred with
Croskey.

Plaintiff William Paulus, who died from mesothelioma, had
previously settled with other defendants for a total of
$5,150,000. When the jury entered its judgment, it was asked to
allocate liability among 46 different entities, all of which
settled before reaching the jurors except defendant Crane Co. The
jury found Crane Co. 10 percent responsible for Paulus' damages.

The jury concluded that Crane was negligent and its negligence
was a substantial factor in causing harm to Paulus.

Crane appealed the jury conclusions, contending that when
calculating the final judgment, the trial court should have also
considered future setoffs the plaintiffs may obtain through
asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

"Trial court rejected Crane's argument that some setoff should be
made for amounts plaintiffs could recover from asbestos
bankruptcy trusts," Croskey wrote. "The court concluded that any
recovery from such trusts was wholly speculative. The court
further stated that it had no authority to direct plaintiffs to
report on, and  account for, any future recoveries."

Crane also argued in its appeal that the plaintiffs failed to
introduce expert testimony proving that Crane's asbestos-
containing gaskets alone acted as a substantial contribution in
the development of Paulus' mesothelioma

"The court denied the motion, concluding that sufficient evidence
existed to support the jury's conclusion that Crane's asbestos
was a substantial factor," Croskey added.

According to the lawsuit, Paulus was a commercial plumber who
worked regularly with Crane gaskets and valves.  The plaintiffs
allege Crane was partially responsible for Paulus' death.

During the trial, a co-worker testified that, in the 1960s and
1970s, Paulus used Garlock and Cranite asbestos-containing
materials to hammer out flange and bonnet gaskets to help keep
valves water-tight.

Paulus would make gaskets for nearly every job he performed, and
typically used Cranite rather than Garlock. The plumbers would
use Crane gasket material to go with Crane valves during repair
work.

"In short, decedent worked with Cranite for 'many, many years'
and punched hundreds, if not thousands, of gaskets from it,"
Croskey stated.

Croskey wrote that the evidence in trial showed that Paulus'
greatest asbestos exposure was in the form of asbestos-cement
pipe, which was allocated 80 percent of the liability by the
jury. The appeals court is not looking at the "relatively smaller
exposure" due to valve work.

Exposures occurred when Paulus attached valves to pipe by welding
them together and attaching them to flange gaskets. Gaskets
inside the valves were used to ensure that the attachments were
water tight. The plumbers would have to make those flange gaskets
primarily out of Cranite and Garlock. Cranite was distributed by
Crane and was 75 to 85 percent asbestos. When Paulus punched out
the gaskets to attach to the valves, asbestos would be freed into
the air allowing for inhalation, the opinion states.

Paulus was also exposed to asbestos through valve work when the
valves were leaking, which required him to do repair work. While
repairing the valves, Paulus would clean out old bonnet gasket
materials by scraping them with a piece of threaded rod,
releasing the asbestos into the air.

Croskey added that there was also evidence that when Paulus
worked on Crane valves, they may have been insulated with
asbestos materials, which would have been released when he cut
into them during repair work.

In Crane's appeal, it raised two issues: the trial court should
have granted its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
because the plaintiff's expert testimony was insufficient to
establish that Paulus' work with Cranite and Crane bonnet gaskets
constituted a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma; and
the trial court erred in not reducing the judgment against Crane
to account for settlements plaintiffs may in the future obtain
from asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

Croskey wrote that Crane's first appeal regarding its motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. The standard of
review for such appeals requires the appellate court to read the
record "'in the light most advantageous to the plaintiff, resolve
all conflicts in his favor and give him the benefit of all
reasonable inferences in support of the original verdict.'"

He added that causation in asbestos-related cancer cases can be
proven by claimants by demonstrating that the plaintiff's
exposure to Crane's asbestos-containing product was a substantial
factor; but plaintiff's do not have to prove that the defendant's
product was the actual, or only, cause of asbestos-related
cancer.

"The connection, however, must be made between the defendant's
asbestos products and the risk of developing mesothelioma
suffered by the decedent," Croskey wrote.

In other words, Crane cannot be held liable for Paulus' exposure
to replacement asbestos bonnet gaskets used in its valves that
were manufactured by another company as well as insulation
manufactured by a third-party used on or near its valves.

Croskey points out that the dispute in the case can be narrowed
down to one word of testimony given by Dr. Edwin Holstein, who
spoke on behalf of the plaintiff in preventative medicine and
occupational medicine.  He testified that it was his opinion that
"Cranite and Crane Co. valve work was a substantial factor in
causing [Paulus'] mesothelioma."

Holstein's testimony, Croskey stated, referred to exposures from
Crane valves, which could have "encompassed exposures from non-
Crane replacement bonnet gaskets and non-Crane insulation."

"In other words, Crane argues that Dr. Holstein did not testify
that decedent's exposures to Cranite and Crane gaskets alone
constituted a substantial factor, but included non-Crane asbestos
in the exposures which cumulatively constituted a substantial
factor causing decedent's mesothelioma. We disagree," Croskey
added.

According to the opinion, court concludes that Holstein's
testimony should be interpreted to refer to exposures for which
the defendant alone is liable.

The court also concluded that Holstein's other testimony was
sufficient to give rise to the inference that Paulus' exposures
to Crane asbestos was a substantial factor in increasing his risk
of developing mesothelioma.

Croskey clarified, stating that Holstein was the first to testify
and referenced deposition testimonies of witnesses who would
later testify. Also, he specifically referred to Cranite
material, not Garlock, making it clear that he was not charging
Crane with exposures to Garlock gasket material.

Holstein also testified that Paulus frequently worked with Crane
valves, which came supplied with gaskets when new. He added that
the plumbers knew whether the gaskets were original or
replacement parts. During his testimony, Holstein was referring
to original Crane valves with Crane asbestos gaskets
preinstalled.

"To the extent there is any possible ambiguity in Dr. Holstein's
reference to Crane valves, we draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the verdict," Croskey wrote. "Dr. Holstein was properly
referring only to Crane asbestos products."

Croskey stated that the court also considered whether there was
sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that Paulus' exposure
to Crane's asbestos-containing products alone provided a
substantial contribution to mesothelioma development.

In Holstein's testimony, he said all exposures increase the risk,
but only large exposures provide a substantial factor.

Given Paulus' job duties, Croskey wrote that his work was "not a
brief, fleeting exposure, but a repeated exposure to hazardous
concentrations of asbestos over many years."

According to the order, evidence proved that a majority of the
bonnet gaskets removed and replaced were Crane gaskets, saying
that it was standard to put Crane gaskets in Crane valves.

"Considering the amount of fibers released per cubic centimeter
of air and the frequency with which decedent cut gaskets from
Cranite and removed work Crane bonnet gaskets over many years,
the jury had a sufficient basis on which to conclude that
decedent's exposure to Crane's asbestos products constituted a
substantial factor in increasing his risk of mesothelioma,"
Croskey wrote.

As for Crane's request for a further setoff, Croskey stated that
the Code of Civil Procedures provides for a setoff when a
settlement has been awarded before a verdict or judgment but does
not apply to post-judgment settlements.

"Crane's argument is based on nothing more than speculation about
future events," Croskey wrote.

"[T]he judgment against Crane does not constitute a double
recovery in any way; all other settlements in existence have been
properly taken into account. If a later settlement subsequently
allows plaintiffs a double recovery, that does not retroactively
make the instant judgment improper," Croskey added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dozens Displaced Due to Fibro Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Esposito, writing for KKTV.com, reported that dozens of
families in Pueblo, Colorado, are still out of their homes
because of an asbestos contamination.  Ten units were evacuated
at an apartment complex on Vinewood Lane in Pueblo, off Northern
Avenue and Pueblo Boulevard. The complex is owned by a company
called Emerald Isle Lending.

The asbestos was found after an insurance company asked for
further inspection into a leaky pipe. The Pueblo County Health
Department said that the inspection company found traces of
asbestos in the walls. Residents were notified of the asbestos
and were told to leave. Since then, the owner of complex has been
paying for the families to live at a motel off Highway 50 East.

11 News spoke to Daniel Grissom, a displaced resident. He told us
he already used all of his food stamps and that food is still in
his apartment. He said now he's struggling feed to his family.

"This is really ridiculous being misplaced like this and being
disabled and being treated like this. I'm calling every lawyer
possible to get some help," said Grissom.

The complex's manager, Lina Tafoaa, wouldn't talk about the
evacuation. However, she did deliver donated food items to the
displaced families.

"I'm going to Walmart to get 10 gallons of milk, maybe one
package of baloney, 10 loaves of bread which will hold them off
for the day, but then tomorrow comes and we'll worry about
tomorrow."

An inspection company called Innovative Environmental Solution
collected more samples at the complex to test for asbestos
contamination. The company told 11 News that preliminary results
of that testing will be released. However, the company won't know
how safe the complex is.

The company says testing must be very thorough, and that it could
be days before anyone is allowed back inside.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell, et al., Join Bids to Unseal Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Honeywell and Volkswagen
have moved for access to unseal evidence in Garlock's bankruptcy
proceedings, with Honeywell contending that it has been subject
to the "same form of conduct" described by the federal court in
its recent opinion estimating Garlock's asbestos-related
mesothelioma liabilities at $125 million.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North
Carolina is scheduled to hold a hearing on several motions --
filed by Ford Motor, Honeywell, Volkswagen and a news outlet --
on March 27, according to a notice of proposed agenda entered on
March 24.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Verdict for Cigarette Manufacturer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Kentucky appellate court has affirmed a trial court's
defense verdict in favor of asbestos-containing cigarette and
filter manufacturers from the 1950s.

In a 2-1 decision, Kentucky Court of Appeals Justice Joy A. Moore
delivered the 60-page opinion on Feb. 14 rejecting the
plaintiff's assertions that the instructions given to the jury
were improper and that several items of evidence were wrongfully
excluded.

Justices Laurence B. VanMeter and James H. Lambert consented.
Moore dissented in regards to jury instructions.

According to the lawsuit, decedent William McGuire filed the case
before dying from mesothelioma in March 2011, after which Wanda
McGuire became executrix of his estate in the case.  McGuire and
his wife filed the suit in Jefferson Circuit Court alleging
claims of products liability and negligence against 33 separate
entities
By the time the case made it to trial, Lorillard Tobacco Company
and Hollingsworth & Vose Company were left. After four weeks of
testimony, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense and
the circuit court entered judgment in conformity with these
verdicts and dismissed the plaintiff's claims.

Lorillard manufactured Original Kent cigarettes between 1952 and
1956 in their Louisville plant, which featured asbestos-
containing "micronite filters' manufactured by H&V.  McGuire
worked in Lorillard's factory from August 1953 to August 1954,
during which time he smoked the Original Kent cigarettes.
McGuire also worked as an ironworker, but alleged his asbestos
exposure by virtue of the Kent cigarettes substantially
contributed to his disease due to cigarette smoke and on-site
exposure while employed in the factory.

During the trial, Circuit Judge Charles Cunningham instructed
jurors to consider two years of asbestos exposure when weighing
whether the defendants were liable.

The plaintiff appealed, seeking a new trial.

Jury Instruction Issues

The plaintiffs appealed the decision based on issues with jury
instructions.  They initially alleged that McGuire's mesothelioma
was caused by either his asbestos exposure due to the air he
breathed at Lorillard's plant or his exposure in the smoke he
breathed through Kent cigarettes.

However, when the allegations were submitted to the jury, the
claims were pared.  In short, the final jury instructions omitted
any potential for liability from H&V based on McGuire's alleged
exposure in the smoke he breathed through Kent cigarettes;
omitted any liability form Lorillard based on McGuire's alleged
exposure from air he breathed in Lorillard's plant while employed
there; omitted liability from Lorillard based on McGuire's
exposure through smoking Kent cigarettes unless the plaintiffs
proved his mesothelioma was proximately caused by smoking the
cigarettes after August 1954 rather than during his time working
for Lorillard; and condensed the plaintiff's claims of negligence
and strict liability against the defendants into only one claim
of strict liability against each.

Addressing four main concerns regarding jury instruction issues,
the opinion states that the plaintiffs first take issue with
H&V's omission of liability based on McGuire's alleged exposure
to asbestos in the smoke he breathed through the Kent cigarettes.

"'Wanda alleged H&V was responsible for causing Bill's disease
from the asbestos in the Kent filter and from the asbestos filter
material, which he breathed at Lorillard's plant,'" the
plaintiff's reply brief stated. "'Over Wanda's objection, the
trial court's strict liability instruction led the jury to
believe it could only hold H&V responsible for Bill's exposure to
H&V's asbestos from his plant exposure, but not from smoking Kent
cigarettes. It is highly prejudicial to preclude the jury from
considering an entire theory of a plaintiff's case.'"

Citing the Worldwide Equipment case, the trial court regarded H&V
as a "'component parts manufacturer,'" which exempted it from
liability for McGuire's alleged asbestos exposure through Kent
cigarette smoke.

The opinion states that the record is unclear whether the trial
court's decision was a directed verdict or a drafting error
caught too late.

Regardless, the plaintiffs were to raise their concern in an
appellate brief, and instead raised the argument on the second-
to-last page of their reply brief. As a result, H&V's appellate
brief did not address a corresponding argument defending the
decision, because there was no argument to defend.

Second, the plaintiff raise issue with omission of Lorillard's
liability based upon McGuire's asbestos exposure from air he
breathed at the plant while employed there.  She contends that
because Kentucky's Workers' Compensation Act would have
prohibited McGuire from filing a work comp claim against
Lorillard before he was ever diagnosed with mesothelioma, the
family must be allowed to proceed with a civil action against
Lorillard.

Moore wrote that the appeals court is unpersuaded.

"Because Bill voluntarily accepted Workers' Compensation coverage
during his employment with Lorillard, along with its no-fault
benefits, he cannot now escape its statute of repose and
exclusive remedy provisions. A worker must either accept or
reject Workers' Compensation Act coverage in its entirety and not
just those portions which inure to his benefit," Moore added.

Thirdly, the plaintiff is concerned with Lorillard's omission of
liability unless McGuire's family proved his mesothelioma was
proximately caused by asbestos exposure through smoking Kent
cigarettes.

Similar to its previous decision, the court of appeals agreed
that the Workers' Compensation Act also exempted Lorillard from
any liability relating to McGuire's alleged exposure resulting
from smoking Kent cigarettes. Lorillard was exempt mainly because
"'exclusive remedy'" protection only applies to injuries and
diseases that are covered by Kentucky's Workers' Compensation
Act, which does not cover an injury or disease that occurs
contemporaneously with employment, according to the opinion.

"Rather, the injury or disease in question must arise 'out of and
in the course of employment,' and must therefore be considered
'work-related' or 'occupational,'" Moore wrote.

It continues to explain that while Lorillard gave McGuire Kent
cigarettes to smoke while working, it did not pay him to smoke
and it was not required.

This decision was the opinion of VanMeter and Lambert, but Moore
dissented.

"Here, I believe it is reasonably possible that the jurors could
have believed Bill was exposed to asbestos as a result of smoking
Original Kent cigarettes from August, 1953, to August, 1954,"
Moore wrote. "Lorillard's directed verdict covering that time
period was based solely upon the exclusive remedy provision of
the Workers' Compensation Act, not the sufficiency of the
evidence. Accordingly, I would reverse the circuit court's
judgment in favor of Lorillard and remand for further and
consistent proceedings."

Lastly, the plaintiff is concerned with the trial court's
decision to condense claims of negligence and strict liability
against the defendants into one claim of strict liability against
each entity.

The court of appeals concluded that the claims of negligence were
subsumed by the strict liability instruction to the jury and
stated that redundant instructions are unnecessary.

"It follows that if a manufacturer has placed a defective product
that is unreasonably dangerous in the market, it has violated its
duty under a negligence standard and may be found strictly
liable," Moore wrote. "In light of this, the respective strict
liability instructions against Lorillard and H&V each took into
consideration any evidence presented with respect to negligent
design."

Evidentiary Issues

The plaintiff asserts that the trial court abused its discretion
when deciding to admit or exclude certain evidence.

The claimant first addresses the exclusion of evidence with
regards to other Lorillard employees who were also diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

The claimant asserts that the evidence would help prove
causation. The trial court disagreed, saying she didn't provide a
proper foundation showing that any one of the employees who
contracted mesothelioma had a similar situation as McGuire and
such extensive evidence would be too time-consuming and
confusing.

In a Dec. 2011 order, the trial court concluded, "'Conversely, to
allow detailed discussion of these other putative victims would
greatly expand the scope of the trial. Moreover, it would be
difficult if not impossible to fully assess the degree, if any,
to which each person's exposure at Lorillard was responsible for
their illness.'"

The plaintiff also had issue with the exclusion of several expert
testimonies and advertisements. But the appellate court found
those testimonies and exhibits to be irrelevant and speculative.

"We cannot find that the circuit court's decision to exclude this
evidence presents any ground for reversible error," Moore wrote.

The plaintiff was also concerned about certain inclusions of
defense expert testimony, including former employers and
engineers with Lorillard and H&V. However, Moore wrote that the
court of appeals adopts the Lloyd position, stating that the
former party is permitted as a predecessor in interest to the
present party.

The court of appeals also decided that the plaintiffs failed to
provide deficiencies in the opposing party's cross-examination
that would cause prejudice.

Overall, a majority of the plaintiff's evidentiary issues were
primarily thrown out because the claimants failed to specify what
bothered them, relying on general statements and overall
concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Slows Tributary Brewing Co. Opening
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah McDermott, writing for Seacoast Online, reported that
it's going to be at least a few more months before Tributary
Brewing Co. opens on Shapleigh Road, in Kittery, Maine, after
asbestos found in the floor tiles slowed down the renovation
process.

"Everybody's chomping at the bit, including me," said master
brewer Tod Mott, who is renting the space next to the Kittery
Post Office and hoped to open this month.

Mott said the project is two months behind schedule. The asbestos
discovery put everything on hold for a while, as state officials
had to be called in and a removal specialist hired.

Mott said the tiles haven't been ripped up. Instead, they have
been "encapsulated, which is a much better and much greener
approach."

Mott, the former master brewer at the Portsmouth Brewery, will
open a microbrewery and tasting room on site. Patrons can
purchase "samples" and then bring beer home. No food will be
served.

In the last few weeks, the construction phase of the work has
started. Mott said the construction manager told him it would
take at least 60 days to complete the work.

In the meantime, Mott said he is working on some "collaborations"
with other microbreweries, including Infinity and Rising Tide in
Portland and Earth Eagle in Portsmouth, N.H.  He said such
collaborations benefit both breweries because each is able to
sell the beer in their own place.

"It's a great way to build another recipe and work with different
breweries," he said.

While Mott said he wishes he was open now, "it's going to be
perfect timing" for Tributary to be open in May; in time for the
Kittery Farmers Market in the parking lot out front.

Unfortunately, he said, it was not possible for Andrew Bevan of
Salmon Falls Winery to share the space with Tributary Brewing --
as was the original intent. The state wanted the winery and
brewery to be separate operations under one roof, and the cost
was prohibitive, Mott said.

Bevan said it was "disappointing" that he couldn't move into the
space, but said he will look for other opportunities. In the
meantime, he is getting ready to launch a new line of wines,
Andrew Bevan Wines, this May.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rain Uncovers Fibro Worry From Old Quarry
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Conaghan, writing for The Morning Bulletin, reported that
the rain has been welcomed by much of Central Queensland, in
Australia, for the relief it has bought, but for residents in a
Cawarral street it has uncovered a big problem.

When Tamara Russell went to observe the rainfall on her property,
she said she discovered the rain had washed away bitumen on
Tookers Rd and exposed chunks of asbestos.  She said the asbestos
was left over from the old Mt Chalmers Quarry, which was shut
down years ago. One chunk was the size of her fist, which she
found about 20m from their driveway.

Ms Russell has recorded how much rain they have had on their
Cawarral property ever since they moved there 17 years ago, with
records kept in a drawer on their six acre property.

"There is water and washouts all along the roads, it's just
crazy.

"There was a road seal over the top of it (the asbestos) until
all this rain now, and obviously it's exposed it all," Ms Russell
said.  She contacted the council after discovering the asbestos.

Livingstone Shire Council said they would issue a response, but
were unable to respond before print deadline because all officers
were out monitoring road conditions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Riddled Plant Demolition Could be Refused
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Clark, writing for Daily Echo, reported that plans to
demolish an 'asbestos-riddled' factory to make way for 11 new
homes in Christchurch, in England, could be set for refusal.

Developer Landmark Estates have submitted a planning application
to Christchurch council to replace the Priory Engineering factory
in Purewell with 11 new homes.

More than 40 neighbours have signed a petition calling on
Christchurch council to pass the plans at a meeting.  But
officers have recommended the scheme for refusal, due to concerns
about flood risk.  They say the plans do not fulfil a so-called
'sequential test' and officers believe there are a number of
alternative sites in the borough for housing development.

However, James Bradley, Landmark Estates' managing director, said
the scheme incorporates an "innovative design" that raises the
level of the homes so that should flooding occur, the main
residence is protected.

"The site hasn't flooded in more than a hundred years and nor was
it affected by the recent adverse weather, but as it technically
sits in a flood risk area we thought this was prudent," he said.

"The current site frontage presents an ugly factory gable end to
an otherwise orderly and elegant street and our proposals will
see this replaced with Georgian-style homes in keeping with the
existing scale and design of the area."

He added: "Local people like our approach but, clearly, they also
want an asbestos-riddled factory from out of their midst.

"If our proposals are approved then we'll use expert contractors
to carefully remove the substance before demolishing the unit and
bringing affordable and stylish homes to what remains an
enduringly popular location."

Joe Evans, who lives nearby, said: "It's incongruous having a
factory in the midst of such an elegant street and everyone's
behind the plans. "Besides, we need more affordable homes for
young families to get on the housing ladder. "This seems like a
good opportunity to get some built."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Montefiore Medical Center
---------------------------------------------------------
News 12 Bronx reported that both asbestos and mold have been
detected inside the walls of Montefiore's Family Health Center on
East 193rd Street in Fordham, New York.

In February, a patient came to News 12 with mold concerns.

Employees first detected a musty odor coming from a water-damaged
part of the building months ago and complained. Even patients say
they noticed it.

The hospital says analysis detecting asbestos was done in
January. Work began in February to get rid of it and was just
completed two weeks ago.

News 12 is told that dozens of staff members have been treated at
the hospital's own occupational health service with respiratory
symptoms.

However, Chief Medical Officer Andrew Racine says the staff
members could have been sick for a number of reasons.

The NYC Health Department has inspected the building for safety.
Montefiore's Family Health Center will move out of the current
building to a Fordham Plaza location. The move was previously
scheduled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Open Claims Files Gains Strength
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that the American
philosopher William James once observed that real scientific
breakthroughs are achieved by "the born geniuses" who "let
themselves be worried and fascinated" by exceptions to widely
held theories about how the world works. They chase down
explanations, he said, until the conventional wisdom is upset.

Something similar may be happening with asbestos litigation. A
manufacturer's stubborn crusade to open up the records of
thousands of claims in asbestos cases has drawn the support of
big names like Ford and Aetna, as they join in the effort to
uncover evidence that lawyers have been gaming the multibillion-
dollar system with conflicting stories about how their clients
got sick.

The evidence is all there, in hundreds of thousands of claim
forms and lawsuits filed by people seeking tens of billions of
dollars for asbestos-related diseases. But plaintiff lawyers have
mounted a fierce  effort to keep most of those records sealed, in
defiance of the normal presumption that court proceedings should
be open to the public.

Ford, in a filing, said Judge Hodge's "findings of widespread and
demonstrable misconduct by asbestos claimants" and their
attorneys suggest there's valuable evidence in the sealed files
that the automaker could use to defend itself. Volkswagen, in a
filing, said "it is nearly impossible for asbestos defendants to
uncover the type of misrepresentation exposed in this proceeding
without judicial intervention."

If the companies are successful, they might finally unravel a
pattern of misrepresentation in asbestos litigation that has cost
companies billions of dollars and driven many of them into
bankruptcy. Defense lawyers say the asbestos-lawsuit business is
built upon the secrecy of plaintiff records, since only the
lawyers representing asbestos claimants know all the different
stories they've told in legal proceedings against different
companies. If those stories can be pulled together into a single
file -- as a Texas judge a few years ago did to uncover a massive
fraud involving silicosis claims -- then companies might have a
better shot at limiting payouts to people who have already
collected for their disease.

All the companies are seeking Rule 2019 filings, so named after
the provision of the federal bankruptcy code that requires
lawyers to identify clients who have claims against a bankrupt
company. They say they need the 2019s to match up people who
filed prior asbestos claims against lists of people suing them,
so they can uncover evidence those plaintiffs had told
conflicting stories about how they got sick.

This is a standard defense in tort law, which requires plaintiffs
to prove that a company's products were a "substantial factor" in
causing their illness. As companies that made clearly dangerous
products like asbestos pipe insulation have gone bankrupt,
plaintiff lawyers have targeted companies like Garlock and Ford
who sold products such as gaskets and brake pads that are
unlikely to have made anyone sick. To help their clients win,
they advise them to remember working only with the products of
the company they are suing, even if they have previously made
equally exclusive claims against other companies.

Normally 2019 filings are public like any other judicial record,
but asbestos lawyers in the early 2000s convinced judges to seal
their filings for a variety of reasons. Chief among them: The
records might reveal confidential "commercial information," such
as fee arrangements, that would hurt their business. Not only
would potential clients be able to play one law firm off against
another for lower fees, but the records might reveal fee-
splitting arrangements that violate ethics rules in most states.
Lawyers are not supposed to get fees for referring clients unless
they do significant legal work on the case, but the practice is
common in the industry where lawyers draw in clients with TV and
Internet ads and then hand them off to firms that focus on
litigation and settlement.

The lawyers also said the filings contained confidential medical
information, but that argument is undermined by the fact they
freely supplied the information for years before seeking to seal
2019 records, and plaintiffs must make all the same information
public when they sue.

"A lot of firms simply responded" by filing public 2019 forms
with medical information in the early days, said S. Todd Brown,
an associate professor at State University of New York Buffalo
Law School and expert on asbestos bankruptcy trusts. "It wasn't
until later, after the litigation really got into full swing,
that the current approach (of sealing records) became more
common. Now everything is filed under seal and you have to jump
through a bunch of hoops to get access to it."

The plaintiff lawyers had an ally in Judge Judith Fitzgerald,
since retired to private practice, who oversaw a number of high-
profile bankruptcies including Pittsburgh Corning, Armstrong
World Industries, Federal-Mogul and Combustion Engineering. She
allowed the lawyers to submit their 2019 filings on CDs, to be
held by the court and released only on a judge's order.

Not many people asked for the records until Garlock was driven
into bankruptcy in 2010 by the escalating demands of asbestos
plaintiff lawyers. The company had been settling asbestos claims
for small amounts for years because its products contained a type
of asbestos believed to be 1/1000th as dangerous as the long-
fiber amphibole asbestos in insulation, and it was sealed in
plastic. A plaintiff who took such a case to trial would have a
hard time establishing the legal level of proof to win any
damages. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a $500,000
jury verdict against Garlock on this basis in 2011, saying that
to blame a pipefitter's mesothelioma on Garlock gaskets would "be
akin to saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the
ocean has substantially contributed to the ocean's volume."

As solvent defendants went bankrupt, however, plaintiff lawyers
started targeting companies like Garlock and demanding far more
money to settle claims than they had before.  Garlock's attorneys
figured their best defense might be to obtain evidence of other
exposures, which would be contained in the 2019 filings and
related paperwork filed with trusts bankrupt companies
established to pay asbestos claims. But they hit a brick wall.

Judge Fitzgerald, in a March 2011 hearing, displayed outright
disdain for the company's arguments, telling attorney Garland S.
Cassada with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson that she didn't buy
Garlock's claim that there was public interest in unsealing the
documents.

"Well, well has that intense interest shown up, Mr. Cassada?" she
asked. "'Cause the only place I get it, frankly, is Garlock. And
I've had probably more than any other judge in the country in
terms of bankruptcy cases that have come up. So where is this
intense interest?"

Later, she said,  "I don't think the 2019s are there just for
fishing expeditions for private litigants."

A federal judge in Delaware disagreed, overruling Fitzgerald in a
March 2013 decision.  The 2019s were indeed public judicial
records and Garlock had a right to see them, U.S. District Judge
Leonard P. Stark held. Garlock's intention to use them in
litigation is a  "quintessentially proper purpose," he said,
because it fosters sharing of judicial records among courts.

That sharing of records is the question facing Judge Hodges.

I reached out to Elihu Inselbuch of Caplin & Drysdale, a lead
attorney for the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants opposed to opening up the Garlock records. He didn't
respond to a request for comment, but in this article on the
firm's website criticizes the "effrontery" of those who seek to
unseal plaintiff records.

"The so-called problem of 'double-dipping,' . . .as defined by
the proponents of trust transparency, does not exist," Inselbuch
wrote. If it appears that way, he said, it's only because workers
were exposed to many different asbestos products and have the
right to craft their complaints against each company as they see
fit.

In a filing opposing motions to unseal the Garlock records,
plaintiff attorneys also say the records would expose
confidential medical conditions of plaintiffs, as well as their
names and addresses. That information is all readily available
from other litigation records, however, such as the New York City
Asbestos Litigation website.

The plaintiff attorneys, of course, say the companies seeking to
pry open the Garlock bankruptcy records can access those same
websites to find the names of plaintiffs who have sued multiple
defendants. But asbestos defendants believe the trust filings
that Hodge examined could be the Rosetta Stone they need to show
how plaintiffs have tailored their stories to obtain the maximum
recovery from each company regardless of how much those stories
conflict. Instead of scouring federal, state and bankruptcy
courts across the country to find each claim, they will be
collected in one place.

There's an example to show how this can work. Back in 2006 a
federal judge who happened to also be a former nurse grew
curious, like Garlock's lawyers, about the wave of silicosis
lawsuits flooding her court. Silicosis is a rare disease, she
knew, yet there seemed to be an epidemic unreported in any of the
mainstream medical journals.

As detailed in this NPR article, Judge Janis Jack ordered the
plaintiff lawyers to turn over the medical and exposure records
for every one of the 10,000 silicosis plaintiffs and defense
lawyers quickly discovered that 68% had previously filed asbestos
claims. Asbestosis -- itself extremely rare, despite the claims
of plaintiff lawyers -- and silicosis almost never occur in the
same person. The silicosis claims were part of a massive fraud.

Judge Hodges only allowed Garlock to perform full discovery on 15
of the thousands of asbestos claims against it. In every case,
lawyers had withheld significant information about other claimed
asbestos exposures that Garlock could have used to deflect
liability. Garlock has since sued a number of those firms for
fraud, including Belluck & Fox, Shein Law Center, Simon
Greenstone and Waters & Kraus.

I've tried to reach each of these law firms for this and other
stories but so far they have declined comment. In a Wall Street
Journal article after Hodge's ruling slashing Garlock's liability
in January, Jeffrey Simon of Simon Greenstone called the judge's
opinion "an outlier."

"It departs radically from the opinions of many other bankruptcy
judges, as well as trial court judges and juries who reviewed the
same subject matter and reached conclusions that much more
closely reflect the evidence," Simon told the Journal.

Sounds like the kind of accepted scientific wisdom that William
James wrote about a century ago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Hears Case Over Evidence Destruction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a federal court case will examine whether New Jersey law was
properly executed in a case alleging a catalyst company and its
attorneys fraudulently destroyed evidence proving asbestos was
present in the company's talc products.

Defendants BASF Catalysts LLC and Cahill Gordon & Reindell LLP
are accused of fraudulently destroying evidence pertaining to
asbestos-containing talc products, allegedly ruining thousands of
product liability suits.  The complaint was brought on behalf of
six individuals who died from asbestos-related, five of which
reside in Ohio, alleging they were exposed to talc products
manufactured and sold by BASF predecessor Englehard Corporation
and its related entities while in the workplace.  They allege the
defendants destroyed the evidence that would have proven that the
talc products contained asbestos and lied about there being any
documents revealing the truth.

"The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the defendants
collectively undertook as the central focus and mechanics of
BASF's asbestos defense an unprecedented, highly organized,
decades-long fraud upon courts and litigants that by design and
intent egregiously violated the rights of individuals and
compromised the integrity of the judicial process," the
plaintiffs wrote in a letter to the appeals court filed March 20.

"Of significance in this assessment are that the development of
the scheme, the gathering, destruction and concealment of
evidence and the retention of exculpatory evidence necessary to
support the defendants' lies that there was no evidence Emtal
talc contained any asbestos occurred in and emanated from BASF's
headquarters in New Jersey," they added.

In their case, the plaintiffs requested the court to judge the
claims using New Jersey law.

"Plaintiffs likely perceived certain benefits in New Jersey's law
-- most notably New Jersey's relatively unique tort of fraudulent
concealment -- and they also needed a single State's law to
govern this case in order to increase the likelihood of class
certification," BASF wrote in a letter to the appeals court.

BASF also argues the claimants also chose New Jersey's law based
on its overwhelming significant contacts and government interest
to the matter, the company argues.

The plaintiffs claim they chose New Jersey law because the
alleged fraudulent conduct occurred there, acts of spoliation and
conspiracy were uncovered in New Jersey State Court proceedings
and BASF's headquarters is located there.

"New Jersey's interest in reining in and disciplining a rogue
company and its co-conspirators who operated a nationwide scheme
from within its borders and under the protection and imprimatur
of its corporate laws are undoubtedly compelling and outweigh the
interests other states may have in mere compensatory damages."

BASF filed a motion to dismiss in Sep. 2011 stating that "'it is
not clear that New Jersey law properly applies to the claims in
this putative nationwide class action brought by Ohio and New
York plaintiffs' estates.'"

Then in Dec. 2012, US District Court Judge Stanley Chester
dismissed the fraud claims after stating that the claims were
barred by the New Jersey litigation privilege provision.

As a result, the plaintiffs appealed the case.

Following a hearing on March 13, Judges Thomas Ambro, Theodore
McKee and Julio Fuentes issued an order requiring all counsels to
file their arguments regarding whether choice of law has been
waived, New Jersey's approach to resolving conflicts of law and
which state's litigation privilege should apply.

In their letters, both defendants argued that the plaintiffs
affirmatively alleged that New Jersey law was proper in their
case and requested the district court to apply that state's
statutory and common law.

The defendants agreed that the district court properly and
consistently applied New Jersey law as the plaintiffs had
requested.

"In New Jersey, when a plaintiff does not raise a choice-of-law
issue, the court may apply the local laws of the forum, which it
did here," Cahill wrote. "The plaintiffs had elected to present
their claims solely under the laws of New Jersey, so it was
appropriately applied, including its litigation privilege."

In other words, according to New Jersey law, the Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws applies. Under this rule, a court
applies the law of the state with the "most significant
relationship" to the case and the parties. However, when a
plaintiff does not raise a choice-of-law issue, the Second
Restatement recognizes that a court may apply the local law of
the forum, which is what the district court proceeded to do.

The district court made it clear that it was "far from apparent"
that New Jersey law was proper, but because the plaintiffs did
not raise a conflict of law issue, the court proceeded to test
their claims under New Jersey law.

"Under the New Jersey litigation privilege, plaintiffs' fraud
claims are barred in their entirety because they are based solely
on statements made in the course of litigation, and plaintiffs'
remaining claims likewise are barred to the extent they are based
on such statements," Cahill stated.

BASF argues the district court's approach was justified by the
procedural posture of this case and by the claimants "intentional
invocation" of New Jersey law.

However, the plaintiffs argue that there is no conflict with the
laws of New Jersey when properly applied because no state court
would apply the litigation privilege regarding claims of fraud.

"[B]ecause no state would extend the litigation privilege to
immunize the magnitude, nature and scope of the fraud alleged
here, there is no conflict of law and thus no need for a choice-
of-law analysis," the plaintiffs state.

Following the district court's dismissal of their amended
complaint, the plaintiffs failed to seek leave to file a second
amended complaint under a different state's law or raise
objection to choice-of-law.

And then, when appealing, the plaintiffs failed to allege error
to the district court's determination to apply New Jersey law;
therefore waiving any choice-of-law objection "twice over,"
Cahill stated in its letter filed March 20.

Thus, the defendants argued that that plaintiffs cannot now
challenge the district court's decision to apply New Jersey law
because they failed to raise the issue on appeal, BASF explains.

"'It is well settled that an appellant's failure to identify or
argue an issue in his opening brief constitutes waiver of that
issue on appeal,'" BASF stated.

"In this case, plaintiffs not only failed to raise any choice-of-
law objection, but also affirmatively asserted that New Jersey
law should apply," Cahill added. "In their amended complaint,
plaintiffs specifically pleaded their fraud and fraudulent-
concealment claims under New Jersey common law. And when
defendants moved to dismiss based on the litigation privilege,
plaintiffs expressly argued that their claims survived under New
Jersey law."

Cahill also applied the invited-error doctrine, which prohibits a
party from complaining on appeal when it invited the district
court to apply a particular state law to begin with.

BSAF also wrote that the court has discretion to consider waived
issues only in 'exceptional circumstances,' which would not apply
in this case.

"The plaintiffs did not simply forfeit choice of law. They
strategically elected to plead their claims under New Jersey law
to increase their chances of class certification, while at the
same time seeking what they may regard as favorable features of
New Jersey law," BASF wrote. "Under these circumstances, there is
no real reason to rescue plaintiffs from their own decision-
making."

"Indeed, to do so would be to sanction 'gamemanship' -- a
plaintiff 'is not entitled to get a free peek at how his dispute
will shake out under [his chosen] law and, when things don't go
his way, ask for a mulligan under the laws of a different
jurisdiction,'" it added.

"Having successfully urged the district court to apply their
preferred law, plaintiffs cannot now complain about that
decision," Cahill added. "To hold otherwise would encourage
gamesmanship: a plaintiff could invite a district court to apply
the law of its favored state and then, if the case does not come
out his way on the merits, ask the appellate court for a second
bite at the apple under the laws of another state."

However, the plaintiffs argue the issues is whether or not the
district court properly applied New Jersey law.

"The issue is did the District Court err in how it applied New
Jersey law regarding the litigation privilege, which the
plaintiffs believe is the case, and therefore request that the
District Court order be reversed and the case remanded for
further proceedings," they stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Insulation Getting Removed at GDCI
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave Flaherty, writing for Goderich Signal-Star, reported that
the second phase of a large improvement project at Goderich
District Collegiate Institute, in Ontario, Canada, has been
approved.

Avon Maitland District School Board (AMDSB) trustees gave the go
ahead on a tender for the replacement of existing steam boilers
and air handling units at the school, as well as the removal of
asbestos insulation.

A report presented at the March 25 board meeting stated the old
equipment would be replaced with high-efficiency condensing-type
hot water boilers, new air handling units with indoor quality
sensors and demand control ventilation capability, and a relief
fan with variable frequency drive.

The project will also include upgrading the main electrical
service entrance and maintenance of the transformer.  The project
was awarded to Lannin Electric of Sebringville for $887,545.19
including taxes.  Phase one of the project was completed in
summer 2013.

Work included demolition of mechanical units in the tech wing and
three northeast classrooms and the addition of a six-tonne
rooftop unit to serve the drama room, one 10-tonne unit to serve
the art room and the three northeast classrooms and the addition
of two heating ventilation units for the balance of the tech
areas.

AMDSB communications manager Steve Howe said work for phase two
would likely be completed by the end of this summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bldg Firm Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Somerset Guardian reported that a building firm has been fined
GBP5,000 after exposing two of its employees to asbestos dust
while working at a house.

Geoff Thomas and Son Ltd allowed the workmen to demolish a
basement ceiling without adequately checking for the presence of
asbestos and sent the pair to work on other jobs without
decontaminating their clothes.  The firm's working practices at
the property in Bath in January 2013 led to an investigation by
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which prosecuted the
company at Bath Magistrates Court.

Magistrates heard the Peasedown St John firm had been contracted
by housing organisation Curo to replace the ceiling at one of its
rented homes. The two employees carried out the job using hand
tools and pulled parts of the ceiling -- made of asbestos
insulation board -- down by hand.

Despite it becoming clear that the ceiling contained asbestos, it
sent the workers off to do other jobs without decontaminating
their clothes or tools.

The HSE's investigation found the contractors failed to make a
suitable or sufficient assessment for the presence of asbestos
before work started and once they did identify the substance,
they failed to prevent its spread.

The company, which was not licensed to handle asbestos, also
failed to notify the HSE of the work in advance, as it was
required to do by law.

Geoff Thomas and Son Ltd of Braysdown, pleaded guilty to two
breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was
fined a total of GBP5,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP637.

A statement from the firm said: "We very much regret this
incident but stress that our staff were properly trained and had
obtained asbestos surveys which they believed gave the all-clear.

"The company is very pleased that the magistrates acknowledged
the steps we had taken to avoid this sort of incident. We are a
responsible company with an excellent health and safety record
and we believe this is reflected in the level of fine imposed."

HSE inspector Paul Newton, speaking after the hearing, said: "The
long-term effect of exposure to asbestos materials is the single
greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK and the exposure
of these two workers to this dangerous substance was entirely
preventable. A full survey of the area should have been carried
out before work started and suitable plans put in place to deal
with it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal From KiwiRail Locomotives Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Barrington, writing for The Northern Advocate, reported that
removing asbestos from KiwiRail's 40 Chinese-built locomotives is
taking longer than expected, but the continued suspension of
Northland's train services is having little impact on industries
affected.

Those most concerned about the withdrawal of Northland trains ago
are the 32 Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) members who
work on the region's railways and 18 members employed at
Northport.

KiwiRail has been easing the suspension for Fonterra, providing
weekend trains to carry Kauri dairy factory products to Auckland.
One of these special trains will travel from Auckland to
Whangarei overnight, with services then to Kauri, Otiria and
Portland before returning to Auckland.

Even without the weekend trains, only about 20 truckloads of
Fonterra products need road transport south weekly. A Fonterra
spokeswoman said the company was in close contact with KiwiRail,
but the withdrawal of daily trains was not having a huge impact
on the firm.

Similarly, log trucking companies are handling the extra work
brought by the train suspension, with some logs stockpiled
waiting for special trains like the one due at Otiria and for
normal rail services to resume.

The 40 Chinese-made DL locomotives do not operate on the
Northland line as they are too big for the tunnels. But smaller
engines carry 274,000 tonnes of freight between Whangarei and
Auckland annually, with trains making two return trips five days
a week. Those engines are now being used elsewhere while the
asbestos-contaminated locos are worked on.

RMTU official Wayne Butson said more lines had closed since the
rail industry was renationalised than in the previous nine years
of private rail ownership and union members feared the present
suspension of services indicated the line north of Auckland could
be next to get axed.

Criticising the closing of New Zealand railway workshops and the
procurement of "asbestos-riddled" locomotives, he asked whether
railways would become the transport arm for Fonterra and a few
ports or be developed to provide services for the whole nation.

Meanwhile, KiwiRail said tests showed the asbestos contamination
risk in its DL locomotives was minimal. It was meeting union
officials this week to reassure them everything was being done to
get the locomotives safely back to work.

A fortnight ago the company said the locomotives were not
expected to return to service for at least a week. Now they will
be back "as soon as practicable".

Some KiwiRail staff have taken annual leave while the asbestos
clean-up slows rail traffic, which the company and union said was
standard procedure in their industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer May Get More From Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Ford Motor Co. may owe punitive damages to a mechanic whose
contact with asbestos gave him mesothelioma, a California appeals
court ruled.

Patrick Scott had sued more than 30 companies including Ford in
Alameda County court after he developed mesothelioma from
asbestos-laden parts during his time owning and operating service
stations.  When the case went to trial against Ford alone, Scott
argued that, although the automaker knew about the risks of
asbestos by 1964, warning labels did not appear on cartons of its
brake-replacement parts until at least 1980.

A jury ultimately found Ford 22 percent liable for Scott's cancer
and assigned the bulk of the blame to the U.S. Navy because of
the significant amount of asbestos he encountered while working
at a shipyard. In denying a request for punitive damages, the
trial court credited Ford's claim that Michigan law -- which bars
damages as punishment in civil suits -- controlled on that issue.

Ford appealed for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict
because it said Scott -- a mechanic and service-station owner --
was a "sophisticated user" who did not require asbestos warnings.

The California Supreme Court hammered out the sophisticated-user
defense in 2008's Johnson v. American Standard Inc., barring
strict liability and negligence claims for failure to warn in
cases where plaintiffs know or should know about the inherent
risks of a product they use frequently.

A three-judge panel of the state's First Appellate District
found, however, that Ford failed to satisfy a key requirement of
the sophisticated-user doctrine: Scott's knowledge of the
asbestos risk.

"There was no evidence that Scott, or others like him, were
instructed in the claimed risks as part of their training, in
contrast to the plaintiff in American Standard," Judge Sandra
Margulies wrote for the panel. "On the contrary, the nature of
the risks of automotive asbestos exposure had not even become
clear to the scientific community when Scott opened his first
service station. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the
earliest possible dates from which constructive knowledge of
those risks could be attributed to the general community of
service station owners are 1973, when the first brake
manufacturer placed a warning on its cartons and Chrysler warned
in its service manual, or 1975, at the time of the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health publications.
Further, it could easily be argued that these scattered examples
of notice are not evidence of the type of industry recognition
necessary to impute knowledge to individual participants under
the sophisticated user doctrine. As noted, Ford did not begin to
place a warning on its cartons of brake parts until 1980,
suggesting the industry consensus continued to form throughout
the second half of the 1970s."

Because of the long latency period for mesothelioma, Scott's
exposure to asbestos in the early part of his career figures more
heavily in his cancer, the court found. This means that Ford had
to show it had informed mechanics of the risks by the mid-1960s
to prevail with the sophisticated-user defense, according to the
ruling.  Though the automaker contended that warning labels were
pointless based on evidence suggesting that Scott would have
ignored them, the panel disagreed.

"Scott was described by a former employee at his service station
as safety conscious, and other former employees described safety
precautions he followed in his business," Margulies wrote. "He
testified he did not recall ever seeing a warning regarding the
dangers of vehicle-related asbestos exposure. The jury was
entitled to infer that, had he become aware of the risks of
automotive asbestos exposure, he would have taken appropriate
precautions."

The trial court did, however, incorrectly apply Michigan law to
bar Scott's claim for punitive damages. Since Michigan does not
allow such damages in tort cases, the court should have applied
California's "governmental interest analysis" to resolve the
conflict of law, according to the ruling.

"Reasonable states can and do differ over the efficacy and
appropriateness of punitive damages as a civil remedy," Margulies
wrote. "Michigan's ban on punitive damages is the expression of a
particular view of the appropriate role of the courts in
adjudicating civil disputes: to compensate, rather than to
punish. It represents a declaration of public policy about the
wisdom of granting punitive damages as a legal remedy for
noncriminal conduct. In California, our Legislature has resolved
the debate in precisely the opposite manner. While Michigan has a
strong interest in seeing its view of the appropriate policy
carried out in its own courts, it has a correspondingly minimal
interest in seeing the same policy implemented in the courts of
California."

More than 40 other states allow punitive damages, so adopting the
automaker's argument would lead to absurd results, the court
found.

Ford would enjoy "a nationwide shield from liability, because the
state in which it maintains its headquarters has decided punitive
damages are poor public policy," Margulies wrote. "We cannot
agree, any more than we expect a Michigan court would yield to a
plaintiff's plea to impose punitive damages on a California-based
corporation because its home state has made the opposite policy
judgment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Court Dismisses Nearly 6,000 Fibro Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that nearly 6,000 asbestos cases in the Multidistrict Litigation
court against shipowner defendants have been dismissed.

On March 12, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno who presides at
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted 5,974 personal
jurisdiction motions in cases transferred from the Northern
District of Ohio.

Judge Robreno stated that according to federal rules, personal
jurisdiction over non-resident defendants is provided under the
law of the state in which the district court sits, which would be
Ohio in this case.  He added that the plaintiffs failed to show
by a "preponderance of evidence" that the MDL court has personal
jurisdiction over the defendants.

A total of 6,267 shipowner defendants filed motions to dismiss,
but the 293 defendants alleging improper service of process were
denied dismissal.

The plaintiffs are jointly represented by Jaques Admiralty Law
Firm in Detroit and Motley Rice LLC of Mt. Pleasant, S.C.

A majority of the defendants are represented by Thompson Hine LLP
of Cleveland, which can account for 5,728 of the motions to
dismiss.

Judge Robreno stated that documents submitted were nearly
identical to those in connection with motions in the Bartel case,
in which the judge held that it did not have personal
jurisdiction because Ohio does not recognize general
jurisdiction. However, plaintiffs in this case allege "new"
evidence arguing that defendants waived their lack of personal
jurisdiction defense.

Judge Robreno addresses the new evidence specifically in his
opinion.

"Because the plaintiffs' complaints did not make jurisdictional
allegations about any of the shipowner defendants' specific
activities that allegedly caused injury to the plaintiffs, this
court found that there was no personal jurisdiction over the
defendants," Judge Robreno wrote.

The court also ruled that the defendants in Bartel did not waive
their lack of personal jurisdiction defense because they
consistently raised the defense throughout the litigation, and
did not participate in the litigation of their own volition.

In fact, they raised the defense as early as 1987 when the cases
were still in the Northern District of Ohio.

"Moreover, defendants' motions to dismiss have routinely been
denied without prejudice as they have been ordered to participate
in the litigation prior to the disposition of these motions on
the merits," Judge Robreno wrote.

"'Essentially, defendants are now, for the first time since 1989,
being given the chance to argue the issue of personal
jurisdiction before the court."

Also, the shipowner defendants in Bartel did not intend to waive
the defense despite filing answers. In their answers, they
specifically stated that they were filing answers under protest
pending review by Judge Thomas Lambros' decision to transfer
rather than dismiss the case.

Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss based on lack of
personal jurisdiction were granted.

As for the plaintiffs' new evidence, the plaintiffs again assert
that by filing answers, the defendants in these cases waived
jurisdiction.

However, the defendants responded that the answers were filed
with the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction intact.

Judge Robreno stated in his opinion that this is not new evidence
and "does not tip the scale in favor of the plaintiffs'
arguments."

The claimants also submitted a portion of defense law firm
Thompson Hine's response from Bartel, which stated:

"Furthermore, some nonresident defendants who are not subject to
the personal jurisdiction of this court elected to waive that
valuable due process right and submit themselves to the court's
jurisdiction to take advantage of this court's experience in the
handling of mass tort litigation, the consolidated handling of
cases available in this court, and to avoid the inconvenience of
litigating these cases simultaneously in 13 scattered
jurisdictions," Thompson Hine responded.

On the other hand, the defendants argue that the cited portions
do not prove that every defendant waived their lack of personal
jurisdiction defense.

In addition, the defendants claim there is no way to tell which
"nonresident defendants" waived jurisdiction, how they waived the
defense and whether any of them were even represented by Thompson
Hine.

Judge Robreno wrote that Thompson Hine's statement is not
evidence that any specific defendant waived the defense of lack
of personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs presented more briefs from Thompson Hine allegedly
revealing that he wanted the cases to remain in the Northern
District of Ohio, consequently waiving the defendants' opposition
to personal jurisdiction.

The defendants explained that they opposed consolidation because
their maritime cases were vastly different from state-law based
asbestos claims across the country and could have received final
orders in the district more quickly.

Judge Robreno wrote that the plaintiff's argument only shows that
the defendants resisted the idea of being included in a federal
asbestos MDL, which is "an arguably justifiable resistance given
the length of time that these cases have lingered in MDL 875."

Viewing both exhibits mentioning documents from Thompson Hine,
Judge Robreno added that the court is "not persuaded that these
exhibits show by a preponderance of the evidence a universal
waiver by all defendants, in all cases, in perpetuity. What the
snippets from briefs and letters reflect, at best, is that some
defendants in these cases either considered or would have been
willing to accept a court order keeping their individual case in
the Northern District of Ohio in return for waiving the defense
of personal jurisdiction."

Lastly, the plaintiffs presented a declaration written by
Northern District of Ohio Special Master from 1988-1991 Hartley
Martyn, which states Thompson Hine told him and Lambros that
their clients desired to waive the defense of lack of personal
jurisdiction in order to remain in the district.

While the statements were not recorded in a formal proceeding,
there was an agreement to continue filing in the district without
threatening to file motions to dismiss based on lack of personal
jurisdiction, the claimants added.

The defendants responded saying the declaration is too vague and
never included a formal agreement on the record. The allegation
also doesn't give a date the waiver allegedly occurred, doesn't
discuss circumstances and doesn't list the defendants allegedly
desiring to waive.

Judge Robreno wrote that Martyn's declaration fails to show the
defendants waived their lack of personal jurisdiction defense.

"Importantly, Mr. Martyn does not point to any matters of record
which would support his twenty-plus-year-old memory of the
events," he added.

Judge Robreno also briefly addressed the cases that were denied
dismissal, stating there is no new evidence presented to change
the court's Bartel decision regarding improper service of
process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Insurance Suit Allowed to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PA., et al., v. PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY, et al., CIVIL NO. CCB-03-
3408, NO. CCB-03-3414 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine C. Blake of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued two
orders dated March 31, 2014:

   (1) Judge Blake, in the first order, granted defendant Porter
Hayden Company's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr.
Michael A. Brown and granted in part and denied in part the
motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Charles H. Mullin.
The Court ruled that Brown provides an explanation that could be
made by calling a non-expert, fact witness.  Indeed, there are
other witnesses the Insurers may call to explain the Trust's
procedures, such as Trustee T. Dennis Feeley.  Judge Blake also
found that Mullin's methodology in comparing the Porter Hayden
Bodily Trust's valuation of claims to "historical" amounts paid
by Porter Hayden in the tort system reliable.  A full-text copy
of Judge Blake's Decision in this matter is available at
http://is.gd/0HXpxmfrom Leagle.com.

   (2) In the second order, Judge Blake granted in part and
denied in part the motion for summary judgment filed by National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., and American
Home Assurance Company to bar coverage settlements made by the
Trust.  Judge Blake also granted in part and denied in part
Porter Hayden's motion for summary judgment as it pertains to the
reasonableness of the Trust's settlements and whether the
Insurers have waived their right to object to those settlements.
A full-text copy of Judge Blake's Decision in this matter is
available at http://is.gd/OASqb3from Leagle.com.

Porter Hayden Company, as Plaintiff, is represented by Robert
Eric Johnston, Esq. -- rjohnston@hollingsworthllp.com -- at
Hollingsworth LLP.  Porter Hayden Company, as Debtor, represented
by Robert Eric Johnston, Esq., at Hollingsworth LLP & Deborah
Hunt Devan, Esq. -- dhd@nqgrg.com -- at Neuberger Quinn Gielen
Rubin and Gibber PA.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, represented by:

         Timothy R Dingilian, Esq.
         JACKSON AND CAMPBELL PC
         400 Poydras Street, Suite 2090
         New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
         Toll Free: (866) 920-8471
         Facsimile: (504) 680-4101

Subpoena Group Objectors, Movant, represented by Deborah Hunt
Devan, Esq., at Neuberger Quinn Gielen Rubin and Gibber PA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss "Amick" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury action styled BARBARA E.
AMICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED GLOVE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-06593 (S.D.W.Va.), Judge
Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted
Plaintiffs Barbara E. Amick, et al.'s motion for leave to file
their "First Amended Complaint," and denied Defendant Ohio Power
Company's motion to dismiss, and denied as moot defendant
American Electric Power Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss and
motion for summary judgment.  A full-text copy of Judge
Johnston's March 17, 2014, memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/7zhnK6from Leagle.com.

Eldon E. Amick and Barbara E. Amick, Plaintiffs, represented by
Carla Jo Guttilla, Esq. -- carlaguttilla@nemerofflaw.com -- and
Christopher B. Norris, Esq. -- chrisnorris@nemerofflaw.com -- at
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM; and James A. McKowen, JAMES F. HUMPHREYS &
ASSOCIATES, in Charleston, West Virginia.

Ohio Power Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Grove,
GROVE & DELK, in Wheeling, West Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Remand "Garza" Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana proposed that the motion to
remand filed by plaintiffs in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit styled MANUEL GARZA, ET AL. v. PHILLIPS 66
COMPANY, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-742-SDD-SCR (M.D.La.), be
denied after finding that removal of the case was proper under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1333 and 1441 based on the alleged general
maritime claims.  A full-text copy of the Magistrate Judge's
March 10, 2014, report is available at http://is.gd/pbaYcafrom
Leagle.com.

Manuel Garza, Larry Laborde, Lynn Laborde, Michael Northcutt,
Larry A. Smith, Donald Stephens, Wayne Buckley, Charles
Easterling, Steven Goode, Jerry Johnson, James Little, Paul
Luckey, and James Wells, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason
Christian MacFetters, Esq., Philip R. Adams, Jr., Esq., Tammy
Dianne Harris, Esq., Timothy Justin Young, Esq., and Vallie
Schwartz Dugas, Esq., at The Young Firm.

Union Carbide Corp., Defendant, represented by Deborah 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 -- Michael H. Abraham, Esq. --
mabraham@kuchlerpolk.com -- Milele N. St. Julien, Esq. --
mstjulien@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Perrey S. Lee, Esq. --
plee@kuchlerpolk.com -- at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner Richeson,
LLC.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Cartan Loker
Gibbons, Jr., Esq., at Thompson, Gibbons & Westholz, LLC.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, Successor in interest to
Phillips Petroleum Company f/k /a/ConocoPhillips and n/k /a
Phillips 66 company and Phillips 66 Company formerly d/b/a
Drilling Specialties Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen
F. Drew, Esq. -- kathleen.drew@arlaw.com -- at Adams & Reese.

Coastal Chemical Co., L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Campbell
Edington Wallace, Esq. -- cwallace@frilot.com -- Allen J. Krouse,
III, Esq. -- akrouse@frilot.com -- at Frilot L.L.C.

Rowan Companies Inc, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Esq. -- dflint@frfirm.com -- E. Stuart Ponder, Esq. --
sponder@frfirm.com -- and Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay, III, Esq. --
ldemarcay@frfirm.com -- at Fowler, Rodriguez.

Harbinger Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline M.
Brettner, Esq. -- brettner@carverdarden.com -- and Lindsay E.
Spann, Esq. -- spann@carverdarden.com -- at Carver, Darden,
Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman.

Diamond Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Vondenstein, Esq. -- mvondenstein@hmhlp.com -- at Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Nustar Energy, Defendant, represented by Jay Morton Jalenak ,
Jr., Esq. -- jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com -- Bradley Joseph
Schlotterer, Esq. -- brad.schlotterer@keanmiller.com -- Sarah K.
Weissman, Esq. -- sarah.weissman@keanmiller.com -- and Sean T.
McLaughlin, Esq. --- sean.mclaughlin@keanmiller.com -- at Kean
Miller LLP.

Kaneb Management Company, Defendant, represented by Jay Morton
Jalenak, Jr., Esq., Bradley Joseph Schlotterer, Esq., and Sarah
K. Weissman, Esq., and Sean T. McLaughlin, Esq., at Kean Miller
LLP.

ENSCO Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Esq., E. Stuart Ponder, Esq., and Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay,
III, Esq., at Fowler, Rodriguez.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen F. Drew,
Esq., at Adams & Reese.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in MSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company, a Pennsylvania corporation
licensed to do business in Delaware, manufactures and sells
safety equipment, including heat protection clothing and
respirators.  Allegedly, at one time, MSA's respirators were
defective and its heat protection clothing contained asbestos.
Users of MSA's safety products have filed thousands of actions
against MSA, claiming that, as a result of using MSA's products,
they were exposed to asbestos, silica, and coal dust, and
suffered injuries.

MSA purchased liability insurance coverage to protect itself from
a variety of risks, including potential tort liability.  MSA
purchased insurance in layers with an escalation in policy
limits, in an effort to ensure that it would have sufficient
coverage should any policy be exhausted or otherwise become
unavailable.  MSA contends that it is covered for personal injury
damages under the excess coverage policies it had purchased.

Defendant AIU Insurance Company and other insurance companies
dispute their obligations to cover tort claims against MSA.  The
Underlying Claims arose out of harm suffered by the users of
MSA's products.  MSA has incurred significant financial expense
in  defending and settling the Underlying Claims.  MSA filed the
Delaware action on July 26, 2010, against 31 insurance companies,
concerning 125 insurance policies.  MSA seeks: (1) declaratory
judgment that the Defendant insurance companies are obligated to
defend and/or indemnify MSA; and (2) an award of monetary damages
incurred by MSA relating to MSA's entitlement to coverage.
MSA filed this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on September
18, 2013. MSA seeks a declaration that the "expected/intended"
provision in the policies issued by Defendants North River
Insurance Company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First
State Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, and
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company does not apply to losses
arising from the use of MSA's allegedly defective respirators.

The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in an opinion
dated March 24, 2014, found that the expected/intended provision
is either an exclusion or the functional equivalent of an
exclusion.  The Court also found that MSA has established a prima
facie case for coverage.  Therefore, the burden shifts to
Defendants to show that the expected/intended provision applies
to negate coverage.

The Court further found that the Defendants have failed to show:
(1) that MSA intended or was substantially certain that the
respirators would fail; and (2) that such expected or intended
known failure would result in occupational lung diseases.  The
Court found that the undisputed facts, and the facts viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, do not support
the application of the expected/intended provision to negate
coverage.  The Defendants have failed to identify with
specificity entitlement to additional discovery on these issues.

Accordingly, the Court granted MSA's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AIU INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, C.A. NO. N10C-07-241 MMJ CCLD (Del.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion penned by Judge
Mary M. Johnston is available at http://is.gd/OdMA4Hfrom
Leagle.com.

Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- Michael
B. Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP; Mark A. Packman, Esq. -- packmanm@gotofirm.com --
Gabriel Le Chevallier, Esq. -- lechevallierg@gotofirm.com --
Jenna A. Hudson, Esq. -- hudsonj@gotofirm.com -- and Katrina F.
Johnson, Esq. -- johnsonk@gotofirm.com -- Gilbert LLP, Attorneys
for Plaintiff.

Peter B. Ladig, Esq. -- pladig@morrisjames.com -- Jason C.
Jowers, Esq. -- jjowers@morrisjames.com -- David J. Soldo, Esq. -
- dsoldo@morrisjames.com -- at Morris James LLP; and Alan S.
Miller, Esq. -- amiller@psmn.com -- and Bridget M. Gillespie,
Esq. -- bgillespie@psmn.com -- at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton,
P.C., Attorneys for Defendant North River Insurance Company.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth
A. Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox
Rothschild LLP; Daren S. McNally, Esq. --
daren.mcnally@clydeco.us -- and Barbara M. Almeida, Esq. --
barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -- at Clyde & Co US LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.

James P. Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- and Michele L.
Backus, Esq. -- mbackus@goodwin.com -- at Shipman & Goodwin LLP;
and Richard M. Beck, Esq. -- rbeck@klehr.com -- and Sean M.
Brennecke, Esq. -- sbrennecke@klehr.com -- at Klehr, Harrison,
Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company,
and Twin City Fire Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Denied Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos-related personal action, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it
on the ground that plaintiff's decedent Vincent G. Graff
misidentified EIS brake products as a source of his asbestos
exposure.  Judge Heitler found that the most the affidavit
presented by the defendant does is create a conflict with Mr.
Graff's testimony, which raises an issue of credibility that must
be determined by the trier of fact and which necessarily
precludes summary judgment.

The case is CAROLYN T. MAZZOLI, as Administratrix for the Estate
of VINCENT G. GRAFF, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED AUTO PARTS, INC., et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190008/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's March 26, 2014,
decision and order is available at http://is.gd/ESo5sRfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Won Partial Judgment in "Hicks" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sherry R. Fallon, magistrate judge of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the Court
grant in part and deny in part The Boeing Company's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint.  Judge Fallon recommended that
Boeing's motion should be granted as to the Plaintiff's claims
for design defect and negligence claims other than failure to
warn, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.  The judge
recommended that the Plaintiff's remaining claims should not be
dismissed.

The case is MARY J. HICKS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF ALVA HICKS, JR., AND MARY J. HICKS INDIVIDUALLY,
Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-393-SLR-SRF (D.Del.).  A full-text copy of the
Recommendation dated March 21, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/WqIyG6from Leagle.com.

Mary J. Hicks, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented by
Diane M. Coffey, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

The Boeing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Bryan Patrick
Smith, Esq. -- bsmith@mgmlaw.com -- and William Bruce Larson,
Jr., Esq. -- wlarson@mgmlaw.com -- at Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III.

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC,

Georgia Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Stephanie
Elizabeth Smiertka, Esq. -- ssmiertka@mgmlaw.com -- at Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Joelle Florax, Esq. --
jflorax@rawle.com -- at Rawle & Henderson LLP.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan
Patrick Smith, Esq., and Nathan David Barillo, Esq. --
nbarillo@mgmlaw.com -- at Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Northrop-Grumman Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Nancy Shane Rappaport, Esq. --
nancy.rappaport@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by C. Scott Reese, Esq. -- sreese@coochtaylor.com --
at Cooch & Taylor.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Prelim. Injunction in Inmate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York denied a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief filed by Tyrone Walker in his civil rights
action alleging, among other things, that he was exposed to
friable asbestos while confined at Clinton Correctional Facility.
The case is TYRONE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS LAVALLEY; et al.,
Defendants, NO. 9:12-CV-0807 (TJM/CFH)(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text
copy of Judge McAvoy's decision and order dated March 21, 2014,
is available
at http://is.gd/V1HeUffrom Leagle.com.

TYRONE WALKER, Plaintiff, pro se, Upstate Correctional Facility,
Malone, NY, of counsel.  HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, KRISTEN M.
QUARESIMO, ESQ. New York Attorney General, Ass't Attorney
General, Attorney for Defendants, The Capitol, Albany, NY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malpractice Suit v. Law Firms Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, granted without
prejudice the motions to dismiss filed by 10 defendants in a
legal malpractice suit after finding that the Court lacks of
personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and the complaint failed to state a
claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, with respect to these defendants.

According to the complaint, the lawyers handled claims against
bankrupt asbestos manufacturers on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
other South Carolina residents similarly situated who had been
injured by exposure to asbestos in their workplace.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the lawyers committed
malpractice when they pursued the asbestos claims without
providing notice or obtaining waivers from the Plaintiffs'
employers, thereby barring any potential entitlement to workers'
compensation benefits.  Commenced in 2001 as an action against
four defendants, an amendment of the complaint in 2013 added
others for a total of 27 defendants.  Of those, the 10 moving
Defendants -- John W. Barrett; Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Paul T.
Benton; Eugene C. Tullos; Tullos & Tullos; and Rance N. Ulmer.
The court denies the motions to dismiss filed by David O.
McCormick; Cumbest Cumbest Hunter & McCormick; Crymes G. Pittman;
and Pittman, Germany, Roberts & Welsh, LLP -- are all lawyers and
law firms in Mississippi, and they have filed motions to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The case is Odell Parker; Ruth Parker; Larry Southern; C/A Roy
Southern; Yvonne Harris; and Barbara Patterson, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated in the State of South
Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Asbestos Processing, LLC; Richard H.
Bishoff, PC; Richard H. Bishoff; John M. Deakle; John W. Barrett;
Barrett Law Group, P.A.; A. Joel Bentley; A. Joel Bentley Law
Office; Paul T. Benton; Charles G. Blackwell, Jr.; William R.
Couch; Couch Law Firm; Patrick C. Malouf; Porter & Malouf, P.A.;
Hammack, Barry, Thaggard & May, LLP; David O. McCormick; Cumbest
Cumbest Hunter & McCormick; Crymes G. Pittman; Pittman, Germany,
Roberts & Welsh, LLP; Anthony Sakalarios; Morris Sakalarios &
Blackwell, PLLC; John Michael Simms; Eugene C. Tullos; Tullos &
Tullos; Rance N. Ulmer; Lawyer John Joe; Lawyer Jane Doe,
Defendants, NO. 0:11-CV-01800-JFA (D.S.C.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Anderson's March 21, 2014, order is available at
http://is.gd/U4pV3ffrom Leagle.com.

Odell Parker, Ruth Parker, Larry Southern, Roy Southern, Yvonne
Harris, Barbara Patterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Ann
McCrowey Mickle, Esq., at Ann McCrowey Mickle Law Offices; Brent
P Stewart, Esq., and Jenna W Garraux, Esq., at Stewart Law
Offices, Chad A McGowan, Esq., Steven Randall Hood, Esq., Susan F
Campbell, Esq., and Whitney Boykin Harrison, Esq., at McGowan
Hood Felder and Johnson; and Thomas A Pendarvis, Esq., at
Pendarvis Law Office.

Asbestos Processing LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Van
Doren Gray, Esq. -- egray@sowellgray.com -- and Joseph Calhoun
Watson, Esq. -- cwatson@sowellgray.com -- at Sowell Gray Stepp
and Laffitte; and Jason D Maertens, Esq. --
jason.maertens@smithmoorelaw.com -- at at Smith Moore
Leatherwood.

Richard H Bishoff PC, Defendant, represented by Jason D Maertens,
Esq., Kurt Matthew Rozelsky, Esq. --
kurt.rozelsky@smithmoorelaw.com -- Michael J Giese, Esq. --
mike.giese@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore Leatherwood; and
Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq. -- dbutswinkas@wc.com -- and Richmond
Turner Moore, Esq. -- rtmoore@wc.com -- at Williams and Connolly.

John M Deakle, Defendant, represented by Jason D Maertens, Esq.,
Kurt Matthew Rozelsky, Esq., Michael J Giese, Esq., at Smith
Moore Leatherwood; and Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq., and Richmond
Turner Moore, Esq., at Williams and Connolly.

A Joel Bentley Law Office, Defendant, represented by Leslie Arlen
Cotter, Jr., Esq. -- lcotter@richardsonplowden.com -- Richardson
Plowden and Robinson.

William R Couch and Couch Law Firm, Defendant, represented by
Daniel C Leonardi, Esq. -- dleonardi@nexsenpruet.com -- and Susan
Pedrick McWilliams, Esq. -- smcwilliams@nexsenpruet.com -- at
Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard; and Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq.,
and Richmond Turner Moore, Esq., at Williams and Connolly.

David O McCormick and Cumbest Cumbest Hunter & McCormick,
Defendant, represented by R Hawthorne Barrett, Esq. --
tbarrett@turnerpadget.com -- and Thomas Charles Salane, Esq. --
tsalane@turnerpadget.com -- at Turner Padget Graham and Laney.

Crymes G Pittman and Pittman Germany Roberts & Welsh LLP,
Defendant, represented by John William Fletcher, Esq. --
jfletcher@barnwell-whaley.com -- and Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr.,
Esq. -- mdc@barnwell-whaley.com -- at Barnwell Whaley Patterson
and Helms.

John Michael Simms, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Van Doren
Gray, Esq., and Joseph Calhoun Watson, Esq., at Sowell Gray Stepp
and Laffitte.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Scott" Suit Partially Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patrick Scott owned and operated vehicle service
stations for over 40 years, during which he was periodically
exposed to asbestos from brake and clutch repair.  He eventually
developed mesothelioma, a form of cancer uniquely linked to
asbestos.  Scott and his wife Sharon filed suit against a wide
variety of corporate defendants, alleging several causes of
action for negligence and products liability.

The lawsuit ultimately proceeded to trial against only one
defendant, Ford Motor Co.  During the plaintiffs' case, the trial
court effectively struck the plaintiffs' demand for punitive
damages, finding Michigan law, which does not permit punitive
damages unless specifically authorized by statute, applicable to
this issue.  The jury rendered a plaintiffs' verdict on the
negligence and products liability claims, finding Ford
proportionately liable for Scott's disease.  Following entry of
judgment, Ford unsuccessfully moved for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict.

Ford raises a number of challenges to the trial court's denial of
its JNOV motion, among them that Scott, as a service station
owner and mechanic, should have qualified as a "sophisticated
user" of automotive parts and must be deemed to have been aware
of the risks asbestos exposure from the repair of brakes and
clutches.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
in an opinion dated March 26, 2014, concluded that the
sophisticated user doctrine did not constitute a complete defense
to the plaintiffs' failure to warn claims because Ford failed to
prove the risks of automotive asbestos exposure should have been
known by mechanics in the 1960's and early 1970's, when Scott
began his career.  Because the Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment on the basis of the failure to warn claims, it does not
reach Ford's challenges to the other causes of action.

In a cross-appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the trial court's
decision to invoke Michigan law to strike their demand for
punitive damages.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the Michigan
decisional law denying punitive damages on the principle that the
award of civil damages for the purpose of punishment, rather than
compensation, is inappropriate.  Applying California's
"governmental interest" conflict of laws analysis, the Court of
Appeals concluded that Michigan courts have no interest in seeing
the application of this principle in the courts of California,
which apply a contrary principle in allowing punitive damages.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial on the
issue of punitive damages.

The case is PATRICK SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, NO. A137975 (Cal.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Bxpr7Yfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs and Appellants Patrick Scott and Sharon Scott, are
represented by:

         Joseph D. Satterley, Esq.
         Dianna Lyons, Esq.
         Justin A. Bosl, Esq.
         Ted W. Pelletier, Esq.
         Michael T. Stewart, Esq.
         KAZAN, MCCLAIN, SATTERLEY, LYONS, GREENWOOD & OBERMAN
         Jack London Market
         55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
         Oakland, California 94607
         Tel: 877-995-6372
         Fax: 510.835.4913

Ronald Frank Lopez, Esq. -- rflopez@nixonpeabody.com -- and Ross
M. Petty, Esq. -- rpetty@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody;
Daniel P. Collins, Esq. -- Daniel.Collins@mto.com -- and Nicholas
C. Soltman, Esq. -- Nicholas.Soltman@mto.com -- at Munger, Tolles
& Olson; and Eric C. Tew, Esq. -- etew@dykema.com -- at Dykema
Gossett, for Defendant and Appellant Ford Motor Company.

The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Mary-Christine
Sungaila, Esq. -- mcsungaila@swlaw.com -- at Snell & Wilmer, as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant Ford Motor
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Issues Revised Order in "Martinez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware issued an amended order in the case
captioned MARIA ELENA MARTINEZ, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of SANTOS ROQUE ROCHA, deceased,
Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, INC., Defendant Below, Appellee, NO. 669, 2012 (Del.
Sup.), to revise the dissenting opinion.  A full-text copy of the
revised opinion is available at http://is.gd/zd6WGZfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is one of approximately 32 cases filed against the
defendant-appellee, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., by
Argentine nationals who claim that they were exposed to asbestos
while working in textile plants located in Berazategui, Argentina
and Mercedes, Argentina.  At the time of the alleged exposures,
which began in the early 1960's, the plants were owned by DuPont
Argentina Sociedad Anomina.  DASA, now known as DASRL, has its
principal place of business in Argentina, and is a great-great
grand-subsidiary of DuPont.

Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq., and Jordan J. Perry, Esq., at Jacobs &
Crumplar, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant Maria
Elena Martinez.

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq., and David A. Bilson, Esq., at
Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for
appellee, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Allowed to Join Bid to Remove "Harrell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United Technologies Corporation has filed a motion to
join in defendant Northrop Grumman System Corporation's notice of
removal in the asbestos-related case captioned JAMES HARRELL, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:14 CV 479 CDP (E.D.Mo.).

Defendant United asserts an independent right to removal under
the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1), based on plaintiff James Harrell's allegations that
he was exposed to asbestos from United's aircraft engines while
serving in the United States Navy.  Unlike Northrop, United has
actually provided an affidavit supporting its allegations that
its design of the aircraft engines was under the direction of
federal officers such that it may assert government contractor
immunity as provided by the United States Supreme Court in Boyle
v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988). The
sufficiency of these affidavits, or of either defendants' right
to removal, has not been challenged by a motion a remand.

Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a memorandum
and order dated April 1, 2014, said she will grant United's
motion for joinder.

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

James Harrell and Edna Harrell, Plaintiffs, represented by
Stephanie L. Gold, Esq., and Steven M. Aroesty, Esq., at NAPOLI
AND BERN.

The Boeing Co., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, Esq.
-- wirwin@smsm.com -- at SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- at HEPLER BROOM.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Anita M.
Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Raymond R. Fournie,
Esq. -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- and Melanie R. King,
Esq. -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- at ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
Esq., at HEPLER BROOM.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
L. Springfield, Esq. -- aspringfield@polsinelli.com -- at
POLSINELLI PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
Esq., at HEPLER BROOM.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- at JOLEY
AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C.

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Robert F. Chandler, Esq. -- chandler@bscr-law.com -- at BAKER AND
STERCHI, LLC.

Trane U.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq.,
at HEPLER BROOM.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- at LEWIS AND BRISBOIS,
LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Valentino, Esq., at KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Lovelace" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
After being diagnosed with mesothelioma, James A. Lovelace sued
numerous corporate defendants based on asbestos exposure
sustained during his years of plumbing and construction work.
Lovelace's operative complaint alleged his mesothelioma was
caused by a number of products, including joint compounds
manufactured by Georgia-Pacific LLC and Kaiser Gypsum Company and
containing asbestos supplied by Elementis Chemical, Inc.

Elementis moved for summary judgment by asserting Lovelace had no
evidence to indicate Elementis supplied asbestos for any product
to which Lovelace was exposed.  Lovelace provided deposition
testimony that he recalled seeing the Kaiser and Georgia-Pacific
names on the joint compound containers he had used.  Elementis
objected to the evidence on grounds (1) Lovelace had not
authenticated the documentary evidence purporting to show
Elementis supplied the asbestos to Kaiser or Georgia-Pacific, and
(2) Lovelace's testimony about seeing the names of the
manufacturers on the joint compound products was inadmissible
hearsay. The trial court sustained both evidentiary objections
and granted summary judgment in favor of Elementis.

On appeal, Lovelace argues his deposition testimony identifying
Kaiser and Georgia-Pacific products was not hearsay, fell within
the "ancient document" exception to the hearsay rule, and belongs
to a class of evidence for which a hearsay exception should be
judicially created.

Because Lovelace makes no argument regarding the alternative
grounds on which the judgment granting summary judgment rests,
the Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento,
said it is compelled to affirm.

The case is JAMES A. LOVELACE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
ELEMENTIS CHEMICALS, INC., as Successor in Interest, etc., et
al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. C071503 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 3, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/vsT0i9from Leagle.com.


                             *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
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  * * *