CAR_Public/140509.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 92

                             Headlines


23ANDME: Judge Orders Appointment of Lead Counsel in DNA Kit Suit
ADT CORP: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Florida
ALTRIA GROUP: Types, Number of Tobacco-Related Cases Disclosed
ALTRIA GROUP: Ruling Reached in 50 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM USA
ALTRIA GROUP: 59 Suits by "Addicted Smokers" Lose Certification

ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces Several Lawsuits in Canadian Provinces
ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Yet for Plaintiffs' Motion in "Donovan"
ALTRIA GROUP: 15 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Lawsuits Remain in U.S.
ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Suits Served on PM USA Since Dec. 2008
ALTRIA GROUP: Removed From Phillips Case; PM USA Faces Suit Alone

ALTRIA GROUP: Denial of Certification in "Cabbat" Suit Appealed
ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Wyatt" Pursue Class Certification
ALTRIA GROUP: 19 "Lights" Cases Fail to Secure Certification
ALTRIA GROUP: Appellate Courts Ruled in "Hines," "Sullivan"
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument in Oregon Supreme Court Set for June

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Continues to Face "Carroll" Suit in Delaware
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Arguments in "Price" Plaintiffs' Appeal Heard
ALTRIA GROUP: "Aspinall" Plaintiffs Seek Partial Summary Ruling
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Filed Cross Appeal on Cost Issue in "Brown"
ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Yet for Larsen's Remaining Claim

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Appeals Certification Ruling in Miner Case
ALTRIA GROUP: One Tobacco Price Case Remains Pending in Kansas
APPERIENCE CORP: Accused of Fraud Over IObit Software Product
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks to Junk Amended Securities Complaint in N.Y.
BAJA MINING: Provides Update on Class Action Litigation

BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Faces Lawsuit by Employees in California Court
BNSF RAILWAY: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit Remanded
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Guidant Product Liability Suit Settled
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces MDL Over Transvaginal Surgical Mesh
CAMERON INT'L: Allots $7.1MM for Water Contamination Cases

CANADA: SISIP Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 20
COVIDIEN PLC: Recalls Pipeline(TM) and Alligator(TM) Devices
CROYDON DAY: Hepatitis C Victims Agree to Settle Class Action
CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS: Recall One Lot of CUBICIN(R)
CVB FINANCIAL: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Suit

DIEBOLD INC: Paid Part of Settlement in Ohio Securities Suit
ELAD CANADA: Faces C$30-Mil. Breach of Contract Class Action
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: New Claims Filed by Former "McGrogan" Class
FIRST MIDWEST: Customers' Appeal v. Nixing of Suit Dismissed
FRUITLAND PARK, FL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement

GENERAL MILLS: Deceives Consumers of Kix, "Kellogg" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 51,640 SUVs Over Defective Fuel Gauges
GENERAL MOTOR: 2nd Engineering Executive Steps Down Amid Recall
GROWLIFE INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
HCA HOLDINGS: Remaining Securities Complaints in Discovery

HEALTH MATTERS: Undeclared Milk Prompts Recall in Chocolates
HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
HERBASWAY LABORATORIES: Sued Over Daily Detox Efficacy Claims
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 7 Lots of Propofol Injectable Emulsion
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Dismissal Motion Stays Antitrust Suit

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Hotels Sued Over Phone Call "Recordings"
IOWA: Faces Class Action Over Jobs Blacklist
ISRAEL: Tax Authority Faces NIS300MM Discrimination Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vaginal Mesh Victims Balk at Products
KARL BISSINGER'S: RecallS Dark Chocolate Bunny Ears

KCG HOLDINGS: June Briefing Set in Bid to Dismiss "Fernandez"
KCG HOLDINGS: Suit Over Merger With Knight Capital Continues
KEYCORP: Reaches Settlement in Austin Securities, ERISA Lawsuit
KEYCORP: Metyk Plaintiff Appeals to Keep ERISA Suit Alive
KEYCORP: Checking Account Overdraft Suit on Appeal

KROGER CO: Strawberry Sorbet Brand Recalled in 13 States
KROGER CO: Has Misled Consumers of Sunflower Seeds, Suit Says
LINNCO LLC: To Settle Suit Over Merger With Berry, Bacchus
LINNCO LLC: N.Y. Court Yet to Rule on Motion to Junk Stock Suit
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Amended Securities Suit in Texas

MEDTRONIC INC: Suit Over Defibrillation Leads in Pretrial Stage
MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Minn.
MT GOX: Settlement Deal to Give Creditors 16.5% Stake
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Reaches Settlement in Suit v. Extruded Metals
NEVADA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Coverage

PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Mislabeled Tuscan White Bean Hummus
PURINA ANIMAL: Recalls Poultry Feeds Due Low Vitamin Content
QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Partly Dismisses Securities Suit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: 9th Cir. Revives Police Officers' Class Action
SINCO INC: Undeclared Peanut Protein Prompts Gelato Recall

STERLING FINANCIAL: Has MoU to Settle Suit Over Umpqua Merger
STERLING FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss Retirement System's Suit
STRATASYS LTD: Plaintiffs in Objet Merger Suit Abandon Settlement
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settlement of Overdraft Fees Suit Okayed
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Faces Off-the-Clock Wages Class Action

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Recorded Customers' Phone Calls, Suit Say
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
US FOODS: High Court Allows Overbilling Class Action to Proceed
WALTER ENERGY: Environmental Suit v. Walter Coke Currently Stayed
WALTER ENERGY: Shareholder Litigation in Alabama in Discovery

WYETH: BC Court Certifies Premarin, Premplus Class Action
WYETH: 3rd Circuit Orders Resentencing of Fen-Phen Doctor


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Ruling Spreads to Pittsburgh Corning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $699MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Had 140 Fibro Cases Pending at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Estimates Fibro Liability at $254.7MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $121.1MM Insurance Coverage for Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $466.8MM Fibro Liability Accrual
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ametek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Settles Mississippi Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Allowed to Modify Personal Injury Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Bids Granted in Ford v. Garlock
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Dismissed as Defendant in "Bode" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harley-Davison's Insurance Suit Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Skelton" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four-Month Trial Ends With $12.5MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lurking Beneath Byzantine Wall Paintings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Forces Closure of Toronto Catholic School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Men Get Prison Time for Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk in New Zealand Trains "Minimal"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards Mesothelioma Victim $7.2MM in Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calls for Stronger Bylaws Brought to Council
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra House Cleared for Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleaning Continues at Madison Library

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Even Small Amounts of Fibro Can Cause Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Site of New Bus Depot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Clean-up Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Hotline for Queenslanders
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanford Contractors Fined Over Fibro Issues

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Funding Available for Bradford People
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Chatham Schools to Receive Fibro Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attys. Clear Up "Every Exposure" Confusion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Compliance Monitor Pleads Guilty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,678 New Cases Filed in 2013

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust a Factor in Father's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Lead and Asbestos, Co. Fined
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Fears Over Fleetwood Fibro Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Ships Locked Down on Fibro Fear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition to Follow Removal of Deadly Dust


                            *********


23ANDME: Judge Orders Appointment of Lead Counsel in DNA Kit Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh is moving forward to impose order on the
quagmire of litigation over 23andMe's DNA testing kits.

With nine plaintiffs lawyers in court for a case management
hearing on April 30 and another six ready to chime in over the
phone, Judge Koh was clearly displeased.  "This is not in the
interest of any putative class to have this many people," she
said.  "Everyone's been running wild for months with no
organization." To illustrate her point, Koh held up the stack of
four joint case management briefs she received before the
hearing.  "It's too much," she said.

The attorneys represent plaintiffs in nine class actions filed
against 23andMe Inc. after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
asserted medical claims the company made about its DNA testing
kits were unverified.  Most of the suits have been transferred to
Judge Koh's courtroom, but plaintiffs attorneys are feuding over
whether the case belongs in district court or must be arbitrated.

Burlingame's Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy has filed a class
arbitration complaint that another group has tried to block.  Two
San Diego firms -- the Ankcorn Law Firm and Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield -- are seeking to be appointed joint
interim class counsel, with other firms expected to follow suit.

Judge Koh made it clear on April 30 her first order will be to
appoint lead counsel, although Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
partner Robert Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com -- representing
23andMe, unsuccessfully tried to persuade Judge Koh to first
address his firm's pending motion to compel arbitration.  As far
as he is concerned, the case already has a lead counsel.

"The obvious plaintiffs firm to mediate with is the Cotchett
firm," Mr. Varian said, "because they filed in the right place."
Orrick invited Cotchett and the other firms in favor of
arbitration to a preliminary mediation session scheduled for June
23 in San Francisco.  The remaining firms have been left out
because, according to Varian, it would be pointless to attempt to
mediate with a "mass of jockeying plaintiffs firms."

But the excluded attorneys, including Mark Ankcorn of Ankcorn
Law, objected to a settlement possibly being reached in secret.
"There is potential for the arbitration train to really run off
the tracks," Mr. Ankcorn said.

Judge Koh also expressed concerns.

"You don't think the settlement approval hearing will be a huge
mess because you didn't give all these lawyers a chance to get a
piece of the action?" she asked the defense.

Mr. Varian's team has informally agreed to postpone arbitration
pending Judge Koh's ruling on the motion to compel, set to be
argued in June.

In light of that news, Ankcorn agreed on April 30 to withdraw the
motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction blocking arbitration his team filed in early April.

Judge Koh also questioned why one group of attorneys, led by
Missouri attorney Michael Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com --
of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, has filed two separate suits in the
Northern District of California, one in Massachusetts, plus an
arbitration complaint -- filings that have annoyed other
attorneys, who view them as duplicitous.

"We wanted to make sure those plaintiffs were represented in the
jurisdiction where they felt most comfortable," Mr. Flannery told
Judge Koh.  The case might yet become more complex.  Mr. Flannery
revealed on April 30 a firm he is associated with may file at
least one more suit.

Judge Koh made it clear she has no patience for stragglers.
"Whoever's going to join this party, they need to join now," she
said.  "I don't know who this mysterious firm is, but they need
to act."


ADT CORP: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 28 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of The ADT Corporation common stock during the period
between November 27, 2012 and January 29, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 28, 2014.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/adt/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges ADT and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Through a variety of brands, including ADT, ADT
Pulse and Companion Services, ADT provides electronic security,
interactive home and business automation, and related monitoring
services to approximately 6.5 million residential and small
business customers in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements to the
investing public about the Company's financial condition and
future business prospects for fiscal 2013 and 2014, including
representations concerning the Company's strong current financial
condition and bullish forecasts of future financial results.  In
fact, ADT was experiencing reduced non-Pulse demand, accelerating
churn rate and attrition, and increased advertising and service
costs, all of which were negatively impacting ADT's recurring
revenue, margins and earnings, such that the Company did not have
a reasonable basis for its 2013 and 2014 quarterly and full-year
financial forecasts.  As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, trading as high as
$49.73 per share on March 13, 2013.

On November 25, 2013, ADT announced in a press release that the
Company would repurchase the vast majority of board member Keith
A. Meister and Corvex Management LP's ADT common stock position
at an above-market price of $44.01 per share, and that,
notwithstanding Meister having joined the Board of Directors less
than one year earlier, he was resigning from ADT's Board
effective immediately.  On this disclosure, investors began to
question the veracity of ADT's earnings forecasts, and the price
of ADT common stock dropped nearly 10% to $40.85 per share.

Then, on January 30, 2014, before the market opened, ADT issued a
press release announcing severely disappointing first quarter
2014 results, falling far short of ADT's previous bullish EPS
guidance and Wall Street's consensus estimate.  Investors reacted
swiftly, and the price of ADT stock fell 17% from $37.81 per
share to $31.40 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ADT common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Types, Number of Tobacco-Related Cases Disclosed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. disclosed tobacco-related cases filed against
it and Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) on its Feb. 26, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the
following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging
personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs; (ii)
smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or
seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring
and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a
number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single
proceeding; (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by
governmental (both domestic and foreign) plaintiffs seeking
reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits; (iv) class
action suits alleging that the uses of the terms "Lights" and
"Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices,
common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
warranty or violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"); and (v) other tobacco-related
litigation. Plaintiffs' theories of recovery and the defenses
raised in pending smoking and health, health care cost recovery
and "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases.

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases
pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some
instances, Altria Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2013, December
31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

Type of Case    Number of Cases  Number of cases  Number of cases
                Pending as of    Pending as of    Pending as of
                Dec. 31, 2013    Dec. 31, 2012    Dec. 31, 2011
Individual
Smoking and
Health Case(1)          67            77            82
               ----------------------------------------
Smoking and
Health Class
Actions and
Aggregated
Claims Litigation(2)     6             7            7
                     ----------------------------------------
Health Care Cost
Recovery Actions         1             1            1
                     ----------------------------------------
"Lights/Ultra
Lights" Class
Actions                 15            14           17
                     ----------------------------------------
Tobacco Price Cases      1             1            1

(1) Does not include 2,572 cases brought by flight attendants
seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS"). The
flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking
and health class action in Florida, which was settled in 1997
(Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case
allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking
compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive
damages. Also, does not include individual smoking and health
cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and
federal courts following the decertification of the Engle case.

(2) Includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 346 were
actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single
proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United
States Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in
this case. Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether
punitive damages are permissible were tried in the first phase.
Trial in the first phase of this case began in April 2013. In May
2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the
claims for design defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, and concealment and declined to find that the
defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs
prevailed on their claim that ventilated filter cigarettes should
have included use instructions for the period 1964 to 1969. The
second phase, if any, will consist of individual trials to
determine liability and compensatory damages on that claim only.
In July 2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law and a motion for a new trial. Also in July 2013,
defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict. In August 2013, the trial court denied all post-trial
motions. The trial court entered final judgment on October 28,
2013. On November 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed their notice of
appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.


ALTRIA GROUP: Ruling Reached in 50 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM USA
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of January 27, 2014, 50 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) have resulted in
verdicts, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 14 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006. The plaintiff in Price is seeking to reopen the
judgment dismissing this case and to reinstate the original
verdict.

As of January 27, 2014, 50 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision. Twenty-five verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs and 25 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA.

                       Engle Class Action

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing
that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle
judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other
participating defendants through the completion of all judicial
review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500
million into an interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless
of the outcome of the judicial review, was to be paid to the
court and the court was to determine how to allocate or
distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed
the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial
court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs
petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance
of the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii)
that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not
otherwise known or available knowing that the material was false
or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning
the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that
defendants agreed to misrepresent information regarding the
health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes with the
intention of causing the public to rely on this information to
their detriment; (vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit
information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their
addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on
the information to their detriment; (vii) that all defendants
sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (viii) that
defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory
damages awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two
individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff's claim
was barred by the statute of limitations.

In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3 million,
representing its share of compensatory damages and interest, to
the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme
Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling
that certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal
errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme
Court now be addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the
applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of the
decertified class. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
refused to revise its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised
the set of Phase I findings entitled to res judicata effect by
excluding finding (v) listed above (relating to agreement to
misrepresent information), and added the finding that defendants
sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply,
did not conform to the representations of fact made by
defendants. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the
mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion
with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that
the court address legal errors that were previously raised by
defendants but have not yet been addressed either by the Florida
Third District Court of Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court.
In February 2007, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal
denied defendants' motion. In May 2007, defendants' motion for a
partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of appellate
review was denied by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court. In October 2007, the United
States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition. In November
2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition
for rehearing from the denial of their petition for writ of
certiorari.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida
Supreme Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled
that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with
respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001
bond stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from
the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive
damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's decision, expired in January 2008. As of
December 31, 2013, approximately 3,200 state court cases were
pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual
claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,400 state court
plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of December 31, 2013, approximately
1,200 cases were pending against PM USA in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number
of federal court plaintiffs.

Because of a number of factors, including, but not limited to,
docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal
orders, these numbers are estimates. The U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) dismissed 521 and
306 Engle progeny cases with prejudice in January 2013 and in
June 2013, respectively. In February 2013, plaintiffs appealed
the January dismissal to the U.S Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.


ALTRIA GROUP: 59 Suits by "Addicted Smokers" Lose Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving Philip Morris USA Inc.
(PM USA), according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers,
plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class
action suits in various state and federal courts. In general,
these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a
particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be
nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many
cases, claims of physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas
(1), California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New
York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico
(1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces Several Lawsuits in Canadian Provinces
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of January 27, 2014, Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and
Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other
cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the
Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario, according to Altria
Group's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Yet for Plaintiffs' Motion in "Donovan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has not been set in plaintiffs' renewed motions for
summary judgment to strike affirmative defenses in medical
monitoring class action "Donovan" filed against Philip Morris USA
Inc. (PM USA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Two purported medical monitoring class actions are pending
against PM USA. These two cases were brought in New York
(Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York) and Massachusetts (Donovan,
filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's respective
residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro
brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed
with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for
suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to
identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do
not seek punitive damages. Two other cases (California (Xavier)
and Florida (Gargano)) were dismissed in 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims. In January 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and
declared plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light
of the dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In
May 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' traditional negligence,
strict liability and breach-of-warranty claims on the grounds of
statute of limitations and the widespread knowledge regarding the
risks of cigarette smoking, but certified to the New York State
Court of Appeals the following questions: (1) whether New York
would recognize an independent claim for medical monitoring, (2)
if so, what would be the elements of such a claim, and (3) what
would be the statute of limitations applicable to such a claim
and when would it be triggered. In May 2013, the New York Court
of Appeals accepted the certified questions and, on December 17,
2013, answered the first question ruling that New York law does
not allow for an independent cause of action for medical
monitoring.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held
in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law
recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring
despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled
that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute
of limitations is a factual issue to be determined by the trial
court. The case was remanded to federal court for further
proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class
as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and
violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but
denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July
2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision.
The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy,
plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program
with an approximate cost of $190 million. In June 2011,
plaintiffs filed various motions for summary judgment and to
strike affirmative defenses, which the district court denied in
March 2012 without prejudice. In October 2011, PM USA filed a
motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in
March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the
class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class
membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any
individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February
26, 2013. On January 6, 2014, plaintiffs renewed their previously
filed summary judgment motions to strike affirmative defenses. A
trial date has not been set.

Evolving medical standards and practices could have an impact on
the defense of medical monitoring claims. For example, the first
publication of the findings of the National Cancer Institute's
National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June 2011 reported a 20%
reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain long-term smokers
receiving LDCT Scanning for lung cancer. Since then, various
public health organizations have begun to develop new lung cancer
screening guidelines. Also, a number of hospitals have advertised
the availability of screening programs and some insurance
companies now cover screening for some individuals. Other studies
in this area are ongoing. On December 30, 2013, the United States
Preventative Services Task Force issued a recommendation that
LDCT scanning be classified as a Class B screening for certain
heavy smokers. As such, the LDCT scanning would be considered an
"Essential Health Benefit" for those smokers under the Affordable
Care Act.


ALTRIA GROUP: 15 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Lawsuits Remain in U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, a total of 15 "Lights" and/or "Ultra
Lights" cases are pending in the United States against Philip
Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc.
or its subsidiaries, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As
of December 31, 2013, a total of 15 such cases are pending in the
United States. Three of these cases are pending in U.S. federal
courts. The other cases are pending in various U.S. state courts.

In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending against
PM USA in Israel (El-Roy). In El-Roy, hearings on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification were held in November and December
2008, and an additional hearing on class certification was held
in November 2011. In November 2012, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and ordered the
plaintiffs to pay defendants approximately $100,000 in attorney
fees. Plaintiffs in that case have noticed an appeal.

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case. In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the
FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors
that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law,
the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate
merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a
class action or other state law issues. The case was returned to
the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other federal
cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice
after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, concluding the litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Suits Served on PM USA Since Dec. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013, disclosed that since the December 2008 United States
Supreme Court decision in Good "Lights" case, and through January
27, 2014, 26 purported "Lights" class actions were served upon
Philip Morris USA Inc. and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc.
These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in
federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were
transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL
proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases,
covering the jurisdictions of California, the District of
Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected
by the parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs
and two selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate
review of this decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
leave to appeal. Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases. In April
2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips,
Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in
which the suits originated. In Tang, which was pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in
July 2012, concluding the litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Removed From Phillips Case; PM USA Faces Suit Alone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) is now the sole defendant in the
Phillips case, which is now pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In the case, defendants filed in June 2012 a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' class action consumer
sales practices claims and a motion for judgment on the pleadings
on plaintiffs' state deceptive trade practices claims. In March
2013, the court granted defendants' motions, dismissing with
prejudice the associated claims. In April 2013, defendants filed
a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the class component of
plaintiffs' claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. If
defendants' motion is successful, the only remaining claims that
could potentially be pursued on a class-wide basis would be
claims for implied and express warranty.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in August 2013,
which the court heard on October 30, 2013. On November 5, 2013,
the district court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed
Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice.


ALTRIA GROUP: Denial of Certification in "Cabbat" Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the "Cabbat" case petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for appellate review of a court
decision denying class certification to the case, according to
Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In Cabbat, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii, plaintiffs amended their complaint in July
2012, adding a claim for unjust enrichment and dropping their
claims for breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification in April 2013, which the
trial court denied on January 6, 2014. On January 13, 2014, the
trial court vacated the trial date of February 10, 2014. A new
trial date has not been set. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision.


ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Wyatt" Pursue Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the "Wyatt" case filed a motion in district court
seeking reconsideration of the denial of class certification for
the suit, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In Wyatt, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in January 2013, which the court denied in
August 2013. Also in August 2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which the court denied in September 2013. In October 2013,
plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court seeking
reconsideration of the denial of class certification.


ALTRIA GROUP: 19 "Lights" Cases Fail to Secure Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
About 18 courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify
class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior
class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor
of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA), according to Altria Group
Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey,
New Mexico, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act.


ALTRIA GROUP: Appellate Courts Ruled in "Hines," "Sullivan"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or Philip Morris USA
Inc. (PM USA) or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order
by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The
Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme
Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages
to a certified class in the Price case.

In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed a purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana
federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims
were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act.  In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab
that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide
class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the
United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July
2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August
2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The
Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district
court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in
the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May
2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this
litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument in Oregon Supreme Court Set for June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument on
June 23, 2014 on the issue of class certification in a case filed
against Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) in state court, according
to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and
plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification
denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April
2010. In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's denial of class certification and remanded to the
trial court for further consideration of class certification. In
July 2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the
Oregon Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA
filed its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court on
October 25, 2013, which the court accepted on January 16, 2014.
Oral argument is scheduled for June 23, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Continues to Face "Carroll" Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) is now the sole defendant in the
Carroll case in Delaware, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb.
26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly
known as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for
summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class
representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants. In July 2011, the parties stipulated to
the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. In
February 2013, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation
to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI.
PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Arguments in "Price" Plaintiffs' Appeal Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal to the Fifth Judicial
District Court in the Price Case was heard in October 2013,
according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January
2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3.0 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United
States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of
certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison
County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and
dismissed the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a
petition for relief from the final judgment that was entered in
favor of PM USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the
judgment entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005
Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the
ground that the United States Supreme Court's December 2008
decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's
decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the trial court
granted PM USA's motion on the basis that the petition was not
timely filed. In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court
of Illinois. In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court
ruled that the petition was timely filed and reversed the trial
court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September
2011, the Illinois Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for
review. As a result, the case was returned to the trial court for
proceedings on whether the court should grant the plaintiffs'
petition to reopen the prior judgment. In February 2012,
plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM USA opposed.

Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to the amended
petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to reinstate the
original judgment.  The trial court denied plaintiffs' petition
in December 2012. In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA
filed a motion asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately
exercise its jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. Oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal to the Fifth Judicial District was heard in
October 2013.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Aspinall" Plaintiffs Seek Partial Summary Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Aspinall case filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case,
according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in the Aspinall
case include:

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying
summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-
motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see
Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - Federal Government's
Lawsuit). In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against
Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.
In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Filed Cross Appeal on Cost Issue in "Brown"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) filed a conditional cross appeal
on the issue of how much it will receive, as the prevailing
party, for the expense of defending itself in the Brown case,
according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in the Brown case
include:

In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court
alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA
and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful
and fraudulent business practices.  In May 2009, the California
Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court.
The class consists of individuals who, at the time they were
residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or more
cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or
advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild,"
"low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including
any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases
"ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of
"light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and
injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In
September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial
began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the
class to include California residents who smoked in California
one or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between
January 1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
In June 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial
concluded in July 2013. In September 2013, the court issued a
final Statement of Decision, in which the court found that PM USA
violated California law, but that plaintiffs had not established
a basis for relief. On this basis, the court granted judgment for
PM USA. The court also denied PM USA's motion to decertify the
class. In October 2013, the court entered final judgment in favor
of PM USA. PM USA filed a motion seeking $766,321 in costs as the
prevailing party. On October 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion
for sanctions seeking to offset PM USA's claimed costs in light
of alleged discovery violations and, on November 8, 2013, filed a
motion requesting the court deny or reduce such costs. On
November 8, 2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the
court denied on December 12, 2013. On December 13, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and, on January 2, 2014, PM
USA filed a conditional cross appeal.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Yet for Larsen's Remaining Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
There is no scheduled trial date yet set for plaintiffs in the
Larsen case who are pursuing their "more dangerous" claim against
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA), according to Altria Group Inc.'s
Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner).

Significant developments in the Larsen case include:

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995 - 2003. In June 2010, PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government's
Lawsuit). The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In
June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment,
ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in
October 2011 the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed
to reach a verdict. On January 27, 2014, the trial court reversed
its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against
plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to
pursue that claim. Currently, there is no scheduled trial date.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Appeals Certification Ruling in Miner Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) filed a notice of appeal of the
class certification ruling in the Miner case to the Arkansas
Supreme Court, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner).

Significant developments in the Miner case include:

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. The case was removed to federal court
in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the MDL proceeding.
In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a
class certification motion. On November 8, 2013, the trial court
granted class certification. The certified class includes those
individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010,
purchased Marlboro Lights, including Marlboro Ultra Lights, for
personal consumption in Arkansas. PM USA filed a notice of appeal
of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court
on December 2, 2013.


ALTRIA GROUP: One Tobacco Price Case Remains Pending in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
One case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs
allege that defendants, including Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA)
and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in
violation of antitrust laws, according to Altria Group's Feb. 26,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted. In March
2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's reconsideration of
its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have appealed
the decision, and defendants have cross-appealed the trial
court's class certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of
Kansas. Oral argument occurred on December 11, 2013.


APPERIENCE CORP: Accused of Fraud Over IObit Software Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apperience Corporation, d/b/a IObit, a Cayman Islands
corporation, and BlueSprig, Inc. d/b/a IObit, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00766-EDL (N.D. Cal., February 19,
2014) alleges fraud relating to the Defendants' software product,
IObit, that they claim can identify and fix errors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq.
          Courtney Christine Booth, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  cbooth@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks to Junk Amended Securities Complaint in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665 are seeking to have an
amended complaint dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 26,
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 shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including
October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two
individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012.


BAJA MINING: Provides Update on Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Baja Mining Corp. on April 29 provided a further update to its
announcement on April 9, 2014 notifying of the hearing that was
held on April 8, 2014 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
connection with the proposed class action proceeding previously
reported on July 27, 2012.

On April 28, 2014 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified
the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act.  The court dismissed all claims against Graham
Thody, C. Thomas Ogryzlo, Wolf Seidler, Francois Marland, Giles
Baynham, Gerald Prosalendis and Kendra Low.  As against Baja and
the remaining individual defendants, the court granted leave to
the plaintiff to proceed only with respect to statutory claims
under s. 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act and dismissed all
other claims.  The plaintiff Joseph Sue-Tang has been replaced by
John Matthew Donohue.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
No assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of any
proceedings.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Faces Lawsuit by Employees in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in the California
Superior Court, County of Alameda by individuals employed by its
franchisee, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 8, 2013, Holly Gehl, Chris Armenta, and Trent
Broadstreet (collectively, the "California Plaintiffs"),
individuals employed by the company's franchisee, filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the company, OSI
Restaurant Partners, Inc. and OS Restaurant Services, LLC, two of
the company's subsidiaries, and T-Bird, one of the company's
franchisees. The lawsuit is filed in the California Superior
Court, County of Alameda. The complaint alleges, among other
things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and
termination compensation, and violations of California's Business
and Professions Code. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs
and expenses, including attorney's fees, and such other relief as
the Court determines to be appropriate.


BNSF RAILWAY: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's class
certification decision in the suit In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869 and remanded the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
according to BNSF Railway Company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were
consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District
Court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class
action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other
Class I railroads in April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought
by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I
railroads appealed the class-certification decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals.

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Guidant Product Liability Suit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a defibrillator class action have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3
million, according to Boston Scientific Corporation's Feb. 26,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various
state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal
injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in
certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. Further, the
company is aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability
lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are
pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which
are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On
April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of
persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a
class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009,
the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom
pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members
with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally
seek monetary damages from the company. The parties in the
defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle
to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding
judge set an approval hearing for this settlement for March 24,
2014.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces MDL Over Transvaginal Surgical Mesh
------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established
MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia and transferred to the federal court the
transvaginal surgical mesh cases against Boston Scientific
Corporation to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

As of February 25, 2014, there were over 18,000 product liability
cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products
designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ
prolapse pending against the company. The cases are pending in
various federal and state courts in the United States and include
eight putative class actions. There were also over ten cases in
Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions. Generally, the
plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of the
company's transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs
assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach
of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws
and loss of consortium claims.  Over 1,700 of the cases have been
specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012,
the Attorney General for the State of California informed the
company that their office and certain other state attorneys
general offices intended to initiate a civil investigation into
the company's sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. During
the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written
discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices.
The company is responding to those requests.


CAMERON INT'L: Allots $7.1MM for Water Contamination Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron International Corporation's Consolidated Balance Sheet as
of December 31, 2013 included a liability of approximately $7.1
million for cases related to underground water contamination,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2001, the Company discovered that contaminated underground
water from the former manufacturing site in Houston referenced
had migrated under an adjacent residential area. Pursuant to
applicable state regulations, the Company notified the affected
homeowners. Concerns over the impact on property values of the
underground water contamination and its public disclosure led to
a number of claims by homeowners.  The Company has settled these
claims, primarily as a result of the settlement of a class action
lawsuit, and is obligated to reimburse approximately 190
homeowners for any diminution in value of their property due to
contamination concerns at the time of the property's sale. Test
results of monitoring wells on the southeastern border of the
plume indicate that the plume is moving in a new direction,
likely as a result of a ground water drainage system completed as
part of an interstate highway improvement project.  As a result,
the Company notified 39 additional homeowners, and may provide
notice to additional homeowners, whose property is adjacent to
the class area that their property may be affected.  The Company
is reviewing whether additional remedial measures are
appropriate.  The Company believes, based on its review of the
facts and law, that any potential exposure from existing
agreements as well as any possible new claims that may be filed
with respect to this underground water contamination will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations. The Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet
included a liability of approximately $7.1 million for these
matters as of December 31, 2013.


CANADA: SISIP Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 20
---------------------------------------------------------
The SISIP class action lawsuit could benefit thousands more
disabled Canadian Forces veterans after the tentative settlement
of the one remaining issue -- the Government of Canada's
calculation of Cost of Living Allowance increases.  The proposed
settlement, which requires approval by the Federal Court of
Canada, is projected to result in an additional C$35 million in
benefits to the class members.

The SISIP class action was initiated in March 2007 on behalf of
representative plaintiff Dennis Manuge and all other disabled
Canadian Forces veterans whose Service Income Security Insurance
Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits were reduced by
the amount of their monthly Veterans Affairs Canada disability
pension.

On May 1, 2012, the Federal Court ruled that this benefit
reduction was not permitted by the terms of the Policy.
Following the decision, the class and the federal government
entered into settlement negotiations.

On April 4, 2013, the Federal Court approved an agreement between
the class and the federal government, which ended the reduction
going forward and provided, among other things, a refund for past
reductions plus interest.  The estimated total value of the
settlement approved in April 2013 was C$887.8 million.

During negotiations between the class and the federal government,
class lawyers with McInnes Cooper identified an issue with the
calculation of annual Cost of Living Allowance increases.  It was
agreed in the April 2013 settlement that the Cost of Living
Allowance issue would be resolved at a later date, either by
settlement or a Court decision.

The proposed settlement to resolve the improper calculation of
annual Cost of Living Allowance increase is projected to result
in an additional C$35 million in benefits to the class.

Along with the proposed financial settlement, the class will
expand from the original 8,000 members to 14,000 members.  The
additional 6,000 class members are disabled Canadian Forces
veterans who receive long term disability benefits, but those
benefits had not been reduced by a Veterans Affairs Canada
benefit.

"I'm pleased that this final issue has been resolved and disabled
members will receive some added assistance as a result of this
case," said Mr. Manuge.  "McInnes Cooper has continued to look
out for us, disabled Canadian Forces veterans, right down to
checking what should be straight forward math."

As a result of the proposed settlement, class members will
receive 74% of the benefits that they would have received if,
following legal proceedings, the Federal Court decided to apply
McInnes Cooper's interpretation, plus reasonable interest rates.
The settlement provides a refund back to the inception of the
SISIP LTD Policy in 1971.

The class is represented by Peter Driscoll --
peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.com -- and Daniel Wallace --
daniel.wallace@mcinnescooper.com -- of McInnes Cooper and Ward
Branch -- wbranch@branmac.com -- of
Branch MacMaster.

"From the outset of the SISIP class-action our legal team said
that we will leave no vet behind and we are committed to seeing
that through," said Mr. Wallace.  "We continue to review all
elements related to SISIP to ensure Canadian Forces veterans
receive what they rightfully deserve."

Class counsel has requested that the April 2013 Federal Court
approved legal fees of 8% also be applied to this most recent
settlement.

The form of settlement notice will be sent to the class members
for their review and materials also will be available on
http://www.leavenovetbehind.ca

The settlement approval hearing is scheduled to be heard in the
Federal Court in Halifax on June 20, 2014.


COVIDIEN PLC: Recalls Pipeline(TM) and Alligator(TM) Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien plc on April 11 announced that it has notified customers
of a voluntary recall to address an issue with certain lots of
its Pipeline(TM) Embolization Device and Alligator(TM) Retrieval
Device where the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating applied
to the delivery wire could delaminate and detach from the
devices.

PTFE coating is used to reduce friction between devices and ease
navigation through the vasculature. Delamination of the PTFE
coating could potentially lead to embolic occlusion in the
cerebral vasculature with the risk of stroke and/or death.

Covidien learned of this issue through internal product testing.
The company has not received any reports of patient injuries to
date related to this issue.

The Pipeline(TM) Embolization Device is indicated for the
endovascular treatment of adults (22 years of age and older) with
large or giant wide-necked intracranial aneurysms in the internal
carotid artery from the petrous to the superior hypophyseal
segments. The Alligator Retrieval Device is intended for use in
the peripheral and neuro-vasculature for foreign body retrieval.

A total of 32 Pipeline Embolization Devices and 621 Alligator
Retrieval Devices are affected by this recall. The products were
manufactured and distributed from May 2013 to March 2014. This
issue involves both the Pipeline Embolization Device sold in the
U.S., Australia, France, Germany and United Kingdom, and the
Alligator Retrieval Device, which is sold in the U.S., Australia,
Canada, Europe and Latin America.

Covidien alerted customers to the recall by letter on April 1,
2014, and is arranging for replacement of the recalled products.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory
bodies also have been notified.

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

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

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

For information or to report a problem, please contact Covidien
Customer Service at 1-800-716-6700 between the hours of 7 a.m.
and 7 p.m. (central) or email CustomerServiceUS@Covidien.com

The recall is expected to have a slight negative effect on sales
and earnings in the second half of fiscal 2014. However, the
total impact may increase depending on the timing of replacing
the recalled products.

Covidien -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is a global healthcare
products company that creates innovative medical solutions for
better patient outcomes and delivers value through clinical
leadership and excellence. Covidien develops, manufactures and
sells a diverse range of industry-leading medical device and
supply products. With 2013 revenue of $10.2 billion, Covidien has
more than 38,000 employees worldwide in more than 70 countries,
and its products are sold in over 150 countries.


CROYDON DAY: Hepatitis C Victims Agree to Settle Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Russell, writing for The Courier, reports that the women
involved in a class action against drug-addicted anaesthetist
James Latham Peters for infecting them with hepatitis C have
agreed in principle to settle the case for $13.75 million.

The case had been due to go to trial on April 28 before Justice
John Dixon was told of the proposed settlement.  The matter will
now have to go before another judge for formal approval before
May 12.

Advertisements will be taken out alerting any other victims of
their possible right to a share of the settlement money.  It is
expected up to 60 women will be eligible for a payout.

Barrister Andrew Ingram, representing the woman who had
previously blocked the settlement, told Justice Dixon that her
trial, which had also been due to begin on April 28, should be
adjourned for further mediation to take place.

The settlement offer on the table had initially been contingent
on the woman not trying to go it alone.

Mr. Peters and the other defendants had indicated they did not
want to pay out all the women in the class action and then have
to take part in a trial involving the one victim, but changed
their minds on April 28.

Five of the victims were in court for the settlement
announcement.

There had originally been 50 women suing Mr. Peters, Croydon Day
Surgery, Dr. Mark Schulberg (who hired Peters as an anaesthetist
at the clinic and who operated the clinic at the time) and the
Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency for damages for
pain and suffering, economic loss and medical expenses.

The class action covered women who had been infected with
hepatitis C during pregnancy terminations at the Croydon Day
Surgery between June 2008 and December 2009 when Peters was the
anaesthetist.

Mr. Peters, 64, was jailed last year for 14 years with a non-
parole period of 10 years, after pleading guilty to 55 counts of
negligently causing serious injury to the patients by injecting
himself with prefilledsyringes of fentanyl -- an opioid used in
general anaesthesia -- in theatre at the surgery.  He then
administered the remaining drug to the patients as they underwent
pregnancy terminations.


CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS: Recall One Lot of CUBICIN(R)
----------------------------------------------------
Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: CBST) is voluntarily
recalling one lot of CUBICIN(R) (daptomycin for injection) to the
user level due to the presence of particulate matter, reported
via customer complaint and identified as glass particles, found
in a single vial from this lot, produced by a contract
manufacturer.

The administration of glass particulate, if present in an
intravenous drug, poses a potential safety risk to patients. Case
reports suggest that sequelae of thromboembolism, some life-
threatening (such as pulmonary emboli), may occur. There have
also been reports in the literature of particulate possibly
causing phlebitis, mechanical block of the capillaries or
arterioles, activation of platelets, subsequent generation of
microthrombi, and emboli. Patients with preexisting condition of
trauma or other medical condition that adversely affects the
microvascular blood supply are at an increased risk.
Administration of a glass particulate can also lead to formation
of granulomas, which represent a protective local inflammatory
response to the foreign material.

No adverse events have been reported to date in association with
a product complaint of vials containing glass particulate.

Cubicin is an intravenously administered prescription product
indicated for the treatment of skin infections and certain blood
stream infections. Cubicin is supplied in a single-use vial
packaged in a carton (refer to www.cubicin.com). The affected
Cubicin lot information is contained in the table below. Cubicin
was distributed Nationwide to multiple consignees.

                                                   Ship Dates
   Product Description   Lot #   Expiration Date   (MM/DD/YYYY)
   -------------------   -----   ---------------   ------------
CUBICIN(R) (daptomycin
for injection) 500 mg
NDC 67919-011-01; UPC 3
67919-011-01 6           280453F     APR 2016      3/17/2014
                                                   Through
                                                   3/25/2014

Cubist is notifying customers by letter and phone. Anyone with an
existing inventory of the product lot listed should determine
whether they have product from the recalled lot, quarantine and
discontinue distribution of this recalled lot of the product and
call Cubist at (855) 534-8309 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 7
p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday, to arrange for return and
replacement of the affected lot.

As noted in the package insert for CUBICIN, parenteral drug
products should be carefully inspected visually for particulate
matter prior to administration. Healthcare providers should not
use any CUBICIN vials containing particulate matter.

Patient safety is Cubist's top priority and the Company wants to
ensure that patients and the healthcare professionals using
CUBICIN are aware of this recall and of what actions, if any,
they should take. Cubist is arranging for return of recalled
product. An internal investigation has identified the root cause
as a manufacturing issue with a single manufacturing line of one
of our suppliers, and Cubist has suspended all manufacturing on
this line.

For healthcare professionals and pharmacists with medical
questions regarding this recall may contact Cubist Medical
Information at (877) 282-4786 between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday.

Adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Events
Program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm

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

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


CVB FINANCIAL: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated suit Lloyd v. CVB Financial
Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM filed their notice of
appeal against the dismissal of the suit, according to the
company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action captioned
Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (the
company's President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J.
Biebrich, Jr. (the company's former Chief Financial Officer) were
also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second
purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against
the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd
complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those
included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved
the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the
Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same
defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual
defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed
to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout
the purported class period, which is alleged to be between
October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint
sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the
purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the
plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days
of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and,
following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4,
2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012,
granting defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file
another amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On
September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its
third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following
another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued
an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time
on May 9, 2013. Although the District Court's most recent order
of dismissal provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third
amended and restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of
the order, on June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead
filed a Notice of Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along
with a request that the District Court convert its order to a
dismissal with prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed
straight to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the district court entered its
order dismissing the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with
prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on
October 24, 2013.  As currently scheduled, the plaintiffs'
opening brief was due to be filed by April 7, 2014, and the
Company's reply brief was due to be filed by May 7, 2014.


DIEBOLD INC: Paid Part of Settlement in Ohio Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the fourth quarter of 2013, Diebold, Incorporated paid its
part of the settlement in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461 into an escrow
fund, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers,
and the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-
1461). The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between June 30, 2005 and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses
related to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the
matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC in June
2010 finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the
investigation of the Company conducted by the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC. In the second quarter 2013, the Company
recorded a $30,000,000 pre-tax charge within selling and
administrative expense related to an agreement in principle to
settle this matter and an offsetting $12,755,000 pre-tax credit
within selling and administrative expense related to the
Company's insurance recovery.

On November 14, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the parties' stipulated settlement agreement; however,
the settlement was subject to notice to the putative class and
final approval by the court. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the
Company and insurance companies paid their respective settlement
amounts into an escrow fund in accordance with the terms of the
settlement agreement.


ELAD CANADA: Faces C$30-Mil. Breach of Contract Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Pigg, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Wendy Ji
believes in getting what you pay for, so she's spearheading a
C$30 million class-action lawsuit against a Toronto condo
developer, claiming they failed to deliver on their promises.

Ms. Ji, 26, says she bought her two-bedroom unit in Emerald City
Condominiums at Don Mills Rd. and Sheppard Ave. E. back in 2010
for one key reason: Developer Elad Canada Inc. said the 36-storey
tower, when built, would have "easy underground access" to the
Sheppard subway line and nearby Fairview Mall.  When Ms. Ji was
finally handed the keys to her brand new unit in February she
discovered a problem: There was no tunnel.  She could only get
into the Don Mills subway station by walking outside, or to
Fairview Mall by walking across busy Sheppard Ave. or through TTC
pathways that ended in outdoor mall parking lots.

The lawyer for condo developer Elad disputes the claim saying,
"there was never any representation that there would be
underground access" from the condo building to the subway or
directly to Fairview Mall: Both are easy to reach by walking out
the lobby doors and six meters to the subway entrance right out
front.

"The station isn't far.  It's not going to kill me to walk there.
But it's the failure of the promise and the fact we paid a
premium for that building because it was supposed to have
underground access," said Ms. Ji in an interview.

She bought the $460,000 condo with backing from her parents who
were taken with a promotional virtual video -- "they must have
watched it 10 or 15 times" -- showing a subway train pulling into
a station with stairs marked Emerald City.  She, like other
residents, is seeking a 10 to 15 per cent rebate, saying the lack
of direct access has devalued their units.

"Most people would just accept it and keep complaining, but this
just pushed my buttons and, I thought, we have to speak up for
ourselves."

The lawsuit, citing misrepresentation and breach of contract, was
filed and involves owners of some 60 condos in the 464-unit
Emerald City Phase I.

It is just the latest evidence that folks who've bought
preconstruction units from blueprints -- years before they are
actually built -- may be reaching a tipping point, just as tens
of thousands more new units are soon to come to completion.

Instead of just griping to friends and in online forums about
what can end up being shoddy workmanship, faulty finishes,
falling glass and even ceilings lower than promised in
developers' marketing materials, they are fighting back.

And they've found a couple of high-powered allies in lawyers
Theodore Charney -- tedc@falconercharney.com -- and Harvey
Strosberg, the latter considered "the multimillion-dollar lawyer"
because of his track record as one of the most successful class-
action litigators in Canada.

Ms. Ji approached the two when she found out, via Google, that
they'd launched three similar suits last fall on behalf of owners
and renters in newly built condos over falling glass.  They're
also suing developers of a 10-year-old CityPlace building where
balcony railings had to be replaced, shutting down outdoor access
for some owners for two years.

Elad vice-president of development and marketing, Netanel Ben Or,
did not respond to emails from the Star about the Emerald City
lawsuit.

"From what we know so far, there doesn't seem to be any merit to
these allegations," said Alan D'Silva, a lawyer with Stikeman
Elliott LLP who was just retained by Emerald City on April 25 to
handle the suit.  He disputed part of the statement of claim that
says residents' only underground option now to get to Fairview
Mall is by paying fares of $3 each way to use TTC pathways: "It's
not right and it's not accurate."

Real estate lawyer Bob Aaron, long a critic of condo sales
agreements that are heavily weighted in favor of developers, says
these class-action cases could shed new light on what he calls
"weasel clauses" that often leave buyers at a disadvantage in
complex preconstruction condo deals that are often penned two to
four years before the condo is built.

"There are so many disclaimers (in sales agreements) that the
developer can build something entirely different and then say,
'Don't come to us (complaining) about any changes.'"

Henry Chien Lin created a website, condoeh.com, to connect with
other Emerald City buyers, such as Ms. Ji, when he says he
discovered a number of problems with the penthouse unit he bought
with his wife and 15-year-old daughter.  Ceilings were lower than
promised in marketing materials for the premium units.  What was
supposed to have been a glass exterior wall in his daughter's
bedroom, he says, was divided in half by a four-foot stretch of
concrete.

But it's Elad's failure to disclose the lack of direct
underground access to the subway, touted in marketing materials
and sales contracts, according to the statement of claim, that
upset Mr. Lin most: He saw it as a safety feature for his
daughter if she eventually commutes to classes at the University
of Toronto.

"This is our home.  We're not investors.  We paid a whole lot of
extra money (largely because of the promise of direct subway
access) and we actually received a whole lot less," said Mr. Lin.

After Ms. Ji realized there was no underground connection, she
had her real estate lawyer send a letter to Elad on March 29,
asking for a rebate. Ji had scoured MLS listings and found
similar units, without subway access, were selling for 10 to 15
per cent less.

"With respect to the direct access to the Sheppard subway, there
is direct access through the front lobby and across six meters of
city property, over which the condominium enjoys an access
easement," said Elad lawyer Leor Margulies in response, a
reference to the above-ground subway entrance.

"There was never any representation that there would be
underground access or other forms of access to the subway."
In fact, a promotional brochure for Emerald City says "the lower
level lobby is connected directly to the subway, allowing you the
convenience of going anywhere you like on the TTC without having
to go outside," according to the statement of claim.

The lawsuit alleges that Elad is in breach of contract for making
representations that were "inaccurate or untrue" and then
continuing to make the representations and failing to notify
purchasers and prospective purchasers once the representations
were or became inaccurate.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: New Claims Filed by Former "McGrogan" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three new complaints were filed by 34 former members of the class
in the suit McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank, according to
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank was filed as a class action
on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that First Commonwealth
Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum interest rate
of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the
class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account. The
class asserted that the Bank committed fraud, breached its
modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate
Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-
over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate. Plaintiffs sought
monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive
damages for the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law violations and attorney's fees. The court
granted class certification as to the breach of modified contract
claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims. The breach of contract claim was predicated upon a letter
sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by
the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts.

The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as
notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the
rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be
retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue
going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual
additions." On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order
granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
class action claims. The Court found that the Bank retained the
right to resign as custodian of the accounts and that the act of
resigning as custodian and closing the accounts did not breach
the terms of the underlying IRA contract. On appeal, the Superior
Court affirmed the denial of class certification to the claims of
fraud in the execution and violation of the UTPCPL. The Superior
Court found that none of the other issues were ripe for appeal.
Jurisdiction was returned to the Court of Common Pleas where the
individual fraud and UTPCPL claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan await
trial.

In December 2013, three new complaints were filed by 34 former
members of the McGrogan class:

(1) Jarrett et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank -- An action filed
by eight plaintiffs on December 2, 3013 in the Westmoreland
County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

(2) Young et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank -- An action filed by
12 plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County
Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

(3) Fisanik et. al. v. First Commonwealth Bank -- An action filed
by 14 plaintiffs on December 9, 2013 in the Cambria County Court
of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the inducement,
fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, and breach of
fiduciary duty.

The 36 plaintiffs who have filed individual actions held Market
Rate Savings IRA balances totaling approximately $4 million at
the time of the Bank's resignation as custodian of the IRAs in
2008. The average age of the plaintiffs at that time was 62.


FIRST MIDWEST: Customers' Appeal v. Nixing of Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois entered an order dismissing the
appeal of plaintiffs against the dismissal of a suit filed on
behalf of certain First Midwest Bank customers who incurred
overdraft fees, according to First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.'s March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2011, the Bank was named in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of
certain of the Bank's customers who incurred overdraft fees. The
lawsuit was based on the Bank's practices relating to debit card
transactions, and alleged that these practices resulted in
customers being assessed excessive overdraft fees. The plaintiffs
sought an unspecified amount of damages and other relief,
including restitution. No class was ever certified. The Bank
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and, on
January 23, 2013, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
Bank's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court's ruling. The plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss their appeal, and the
Appellate Court of Illinois entered an order dismissing the
appeal on January 21, 2014.


FRUITLAND PARK, FL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Channel 9 has learned a circuit court judge has approved a class
action settlement that affects many of the residents of a Lake
County city.  The settlement stems from a class action lawsuit
filed by Fruitland Park residents who were fed up with fire and
police fees.

One of those residents, Mike Howard, said he was ready to go
after the city.  "Every place, this has been done before.  It has
proven to be an unconstitutional tax against the citizens," Mr.
Howard said.

Since 2009, residents were being charged about $4 per month and
the fees eventually went up to $8 per month. Officials said the
police and fire fees were being used to help pay for emergency
equipment.

But Mr. Howard, his wife and former city commissioner
Jim Richardson filed a class action lawsuit and in early April, a
judge ruled in favor of the people.  Fruitland Park must now set
up a fund to pay back $530,000 and get rid of the fees.

"That was the number one thing, getting the ordinance repealed
first and foremost," Mr. Howard said.

Attorneys who were representing the group will take home a large
part of the money, but residents are expected to receive as much
as $100 per person in July.


GENERAL MILLS: Deceives Consumers of Kix, "Kellogg" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kellogg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00939-YGR (N.D.
Cal., February 28, 2014) accuses the Defendant of misleading
consumers about the nature of the ingredients of its cereal
products sold under the Kix brand name, namely Original Kix
Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal, Honey Kix Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal;
and, Berry Berry Kix Crispy Puffs Cereal.

The Defendant made the misleading statements that its Products
are "made with All Natural Corn" or are "made with All Natural
Corn & Honey," Mr. Kellogg says.  Hence, he notes, the Defendant
was able to command a premium price by deceiving consumers about
the attributes of its Products and distinguishing the Products
from similar cereals.  Unfortunately, he argues, Kix is not "made
with All Natural Corn," but with corn derived from unnatural
genetically modified plants.

General Mills is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The Defendant markets and distributes
Kix cereal under the General Mills label that are widely consumed
by both children and adults.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Carl S.M. Hum, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com
                  chum@reeeserichman.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP LITE
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com
                  hkelston@milberg.com

               - and -

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David T. Biderman, Esq.
          Sunita B. Bali, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
          E-mail: dbiderman@perkinscoie.com
                  sbali@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
          Mica Dawn Simpson, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-3983
          Facsimile: (206) 359-4983
          E-mail: csipos@perkinscoie.com
                  MSimpson@perkinscoie.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 51,640 SUVs Over Defective Fuel Gauges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that General Motors is recalling
51,640 SUVs because the fuel gauges may show inaccurate readings.
The recall involves the Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse and GMC
Acadia from the 2014 model year.  All of the affected SUVs were
built between March 26 and Aug. 15 of 2013.

GM says the engine control module software may cause the fuel
gauge to read inaccurately.  If that happens, the vehicle might
run out of fuel and stall without warning.  The company doesn't
know of any crashes or injuries related to the problem.

GM says dealers will reprogram the software for free, starting
immediately.  The company will also notify owners by mail.  The
recall was posted on May 3 on the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Web site.


GENERAL MOTOR: 2nd Engineering Executive Steps Down Amid Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that another high-ranking General
Motors engineer is leaving the company in the wake of its delayed
recall of small cars with faulty ignition switches.

Jim Federico, who most recently headed safety, vehicle
performance and testing labs, is retiring after almost 36 years
with the company.  GM said he's leaving on his own to work
outside the auto industry.

Mr. Federico was GM's highest-ranking executive with safety in
his title in February, when the company began recalling 2.6
million older-model small cars to replace the defective ignition
switches. He was also the chief engineer for global small cars in
2010, and was involved in an internal investigation into the
faulty switches.

The switches can unexpectedly move out of the "run" position,
shutting off the engine and disabling the power-assisted steering
and brakes, and the air bags.  GM says the problem has been
linked to 13 deaths, but one trial lawyer says he has 53 wrongful
death lawsuits against GM due to the problem.

The company has admitted knowing about the faulty switches for
more than a decade, yet it didn't issue any recalls until this
year.  Both houses of Congress, the Justice Department and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are investigating
why it took GM so long to act.

Mr. Federico reported to global engineering chief John Calabrese,
who retired last month after 33 years at GM.  Both Messrs.
Calabrese and Federico reported up the chain of command to CEO
Mary Barra, who was in charge of safety when she was head of
global product development from Feb. 1, 2011 until she took the
top job in January of this year, according to a company
organizational chart.

GM said in a statement that Mr. Federico was one of its leading
and most accomplished engineers, playing key roles in successful
vehicles such as the Buick LaCrosse, Regal and Verano, the
Cadillac CTS and XTS, and the Chevrolet Spark, Sonic, Trax, Cruze
and Impala.

Depositions taken in a Georgia wrongful death lawsuit, and e-
mails given to congressional committees by GM, show that Mr.
Federico was in charge of a 2012 investigation into the switches
and held meetings to get updates from his team.  At some point he
was pulled off the team and it was given a different leader, Gay
Kent, according to a deposition.

Ms. Kent is director of vehicle safety operations and
crashworthiness and reported to Mr. Federico during the past two
years, according to the organizational chart.  The outcome of the
investigation was unclear, and GM hasn't said why it took more
than a year for the company to start the recalls.

Mr. Federico's retirement is the latest in a string of personnel
changes at GM since the recall crisis began.  In addition to Mr.
Calabrese, the company has suspended two engineers with pay who
worked on the ignition switches, and the human resources and
public relations chiefs have each left the company.

GM has hired former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas to investigate
why the company was so slow to recall the cars even though the
switches were causing crashes and injuries.  Ms. Barra told
congressional committees that if inappropriate decisions were
made, GM would take action, including firing those involved.


GROWLIFE INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of GrowLife,
Inc., on April 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of GrowLife securities between November 14, 2013 and
April 9, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at
888-773-9224 or at 212-682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com  to discuss this matter.

GrowLife manufactures and supplies plant growing systems, branded
equipment and expendables for urban gardening, primarily for
cultivation of medical marijuana, in the United States.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had provided inaccurate and/or inadequate
information about its stock and engaged in potentially
manipulative transactions; (2) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (3) as a result, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 10, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission
announced that it is temporarily suspending trading of GrowLife
securities.  According to a statement issued by the SEC, trading
of the Company's securities has been suspended until April 29,
2014, "because of questions that have been raised about the
accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace and
potentially manipulative transactions in [the Company's] common
stock."

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move
the Court no later than June 17, 2014, to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or contact
Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E.
42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at 212-682-
5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


HCA HOLDINGS: Remaining Securities Complaints in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding on the remaining claims in a consolidated
securities lawsuit against HCA Holdings, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The
case sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9,
2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various
deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration
Statement.

Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.

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

The consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization
and 2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012. The Court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013. The action is proceeding to discovery on
the remaining claims.


HEALTH MATTERS: Undeclared Milk Prompts Recall in Chocolates
------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH MATTERS AMERICA INC. of Cheektowaga, New York is recalling
specific lots of ORGANIC TRADITIONS BRAND DARK CHOCOLATE GOLDEN
BERRIES AND DARK CHOCOLATE SACHA INCHI SEEDS because they were
found to contain undeclared milk. People who have an allergy to
milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

ORGANIC TRADITIONS BRAND DARK CHOCOLATE GOLDEN BERRIES AND DARK
CHOCOLATE SACHA INCHI SEEDS were distributed through retail
stores in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, New
Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio,
Oakland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The recall applies to 3.5 oz. (100 g) and 5.3 oz. (150 g)
consumer size bags as follows:

    ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE GOLDEN BERRIES Lot numbers
CACAOXPSWEETZZGBEBLK001-12, CACAOXPSWEETZZGBEBLK001-13; NET WT.
3.5 oz. UPC 8 54260 00263 8, and NET WT. 5.3 oz. UPC 8 54260
00266 9;

    ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE SACHA INCHI SEEDS Lot
numbers CACAOXPSWEETZZDSIBLK001-12, CACAOXPSWEETZZSIBLK 001-13;
NET WT. 3.5 oz. UPC 8 54260 00709 1, and NET WT. 5.3 oz. UPC 8
54260 00718 3;

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) that ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK
CHOCOLATE GOLDEN BERRIES had tested positive for milk and was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of
milk. Testing of the other products by CFIA also revealed the
presence of undeclared milk. The problem may have been caused
through cross contamination during production and processing at
the foreign manufacturer.

Consumers who have purchased the above lots of ORGANIC TRADITIONS
BRAND DARK CHOCOLATE GOLDEN BERRIES AND DARK CHOCOLATE SACHA
INCHI SEEDS are urged to return the product to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-888-343-3278, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.


HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on April 28 disclosed that on
March 28, 2014 the San Diego employment law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint
against Heartland Automotive Services, Inc. for allegedly failing
to pay their California hourly employees the proper overtime pay
and allegedly failing to reimburse these employees for money
spent on Heartland's behalf. Cavazos, et al. vs. Heartland
Automotive Services, Inc. Case No. PSC 1401759 is currently
pending in the Riverside County Superior Court for the State of
California.  To view a copy of the Complaint, click here.

The lawsuit claims that the Heartland employees received non-
discretionary performance based bonuses that the company
allegedly failed to include in the regular rate of pay for
purposes of calculating overtime pay.  The failure to include the
performance based bonuses in the regular rate of pay for overtime
purposes, according to the complaint, "has resulted in a
systematic underpayment of overtime compensation" to the
employees.  The Complaint also alleges that Heartland required
their hourly employees in California to work off the clock
performing work tasks for the company but failed to accurately
pay these employees for all their hours worked.

Furthermore, the Complaint also alleges that the California
employees were not reimbursed for business expenses incurred on
the Company's behalf.  Specifically, the Complaint claims that
employees were required to travel between Heartland's retail
centers but the Company allegedly failed to pay any costs to the
employees related to travel for inter-storing runs.  California
Labor Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees
for costs incurred as a result of performing their job duties for
the employer, these costs include money for gas mileage.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Heartland Automotive Services call (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Diego employment law
firm that helps employees fight back against unfair business
practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and
Fair Labor Standards Act.


HERBASWAY LABORATORIES: Sued Over Daily Detox Efficacy Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Herbasway Laboratories, LLC, and Lorraine E. St.
John, Case No. L-001854-14 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.,
February 24, 2014) seeks to redress alleged injury inflicted on
the United States' consumer public.

The Defendants advertised, promoted, marketed, distributed and
sold -- by online and retail distribution throughout the nation,
including the state of New Jersey -- a dietary supplement in
liquid form known as Daily Detox, based upon false and
misrepresented claims of product efficacy, Mr. Hoffman alleges.

Herbasway Laboratories, LLC, is a Connecticut limited liability
company headquartered in Wallingford, Connecticut.  Lorraine E.
St. John is an officer, director, member, or managing member of
Herbasway.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the case:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201)569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 7 Lots of Propofol Injectable Emulsion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. on April 2, 2014, informed customers of a
nationwide recall of seven lots of Propofol Injectable Emulsion,
USP, to the user level due to a glass defect located on the
interior neck of the vial, which was identified during a retain
sample inspection where the glass vial contained visible embedded
metal particulate. Free-floating metal particulates were also
identified in vials upon further analysis.

In general, injected particulate matter may result in local
inflammation, phlebitis, and/or low level allergic response
through mechanical disruption of tissue or immune response to the
particulate. Capillaries, which may be as small as the size of a
red blood cell, may become occluded. Chronically, following
sequestration, particulate matter may lead to granulomatous
formation, most likely in the lungs. Long term clinically
meaningful impact is low if a patient has normal lung function.
While extremely rare, embedded stainless steel may put a patient
at risk from MRI (strong magnetic field exposure) as particulate,
if in the lung, could potentially dislodge and be pulled through
tissue. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse
events associated with this issue for these lots.

The affected lots were distributed nationwide to
distributors/wholesalers, hospitals and clinics from August 2013
through December 2013. The lot numbers affected by the recall
are:

   Product               NDC Number      Lot     Expiration Date
   -------               ----------      ---     ---------------
   Propofol Injectable   0409-4699-30  29-614-DJ     1MAY2015
   Emulsion, 1%,                       29-615-DJ     1MAY2015
   200 mg / 20 mL                      29-616-DJ     1MAY2015
   (10 mg/mL)                          29-617-DJ     1MAY2015
                                       29-628-DJ     1MAY2015
                                       29-629-DJ     1MAY2015
                                       29-630-DJ     1MAY2015

On April 2, 2014, Hospira notified its customers via recall
letter that the company had implemented corrective actions to the
manufacturing process to prevent recurrence.

Customers have been advised to check inventory and immediately
quarantine any affected product. In addition, customers should
inform potential users of this product in their organizations of
this notification. Affected product should be returned to
Stericycle, which can be contacted at 1-877-272-2158 (M-F, 8 a.m.
- 5 p.m. ET).

For medical inquiries, please contact Hospira Medical
Communications at 1-800-615-0187. This phone number is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week.

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

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

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

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

Hospira, Inc. -- http://www.hospira.com/-- provides injectable
drugs and infusion technologies, and is a global leader in
biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is
uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient
and caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company
is headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., and has approximately
17,000 employees.


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Dismissal Motion Stays Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas stayed
all discovery in a consolidation action alleging several online
travel companies and hotel companies are involved in anti-
competitive practices, pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss,
according to InterContinental Hotels Group PLC's Feb. 26, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 20, 2012, two claimants filed a class-action claim in
California against several online travel companies and hotel
companies, including a Group company, InterContinental Hotels
Group Resources, Inc., in connection with alleged anti-
competitive practices. Several similar claims were filed across
the US by other claimants alleging similar complaints. All of
these cases were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation
proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas for the purpose of pre-trial proceedings (with the
exception of cases which were voluntarily dismissed). On May 1,
2013, claimants filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging
federal and state antitrust and unfair trade practices associated
with online hotel-room booking. On July 1, 2013, the defendants
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The motion
to dismiss is fully briefed and argued, and the parties are
awaiting a decision. The Court has stayed all discovery in the
action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Hotels Sued Over Phone Call "Recordings"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two hotels of the InterContinental Hotels Group PLC are facing
allegations they violated California Penal Code 632.7, based upon
an alleged improper recording of cellular phone calls originating
from California to IHG customer care and reservations centers,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

A class-action claim was filed on July 3, 2012 by two claimants
alleging that InterContinental Hotels of San Francisco, Inc. and
InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. violated California
Penal Code 632.7, based upon the alleged improper recording of
cellular phone calls originating from California to IHG customer
care and reservations centers. The claimants subsequently amended
the claim to include Six Continents Hotels, Inc.  The Group
intends to vigorously defend against these claims. As at February
17, 2014, the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable result
cannot be reasonably determined and it is not possible to
determine whether any loss is probable or to estimate the amount
of any loss.


IOWA: Faces Class Action Over Jobs Blacklist
--------------------------------------------
KCCI reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by
former Iowa executive branch employees claims the state's
so-called blacklist is illegal.

Three employees allege in a lawsuit filed on April 28 in Polk
County that they were put on the list without their knowledge and
disqualified from future state employment when they were
terminated.  The lawsuit contends the Department of
Administrative Services doesn't have authority to disqualify
fired workers from all 42 executive branch agencies.  It says the
department's practice of not notifying people that they are on
the list until they reapply for state jobs is a violation of
their due process rights.

The department argues that administrative rules give it the
ability to disqualify applicants based on their previous firings.


ISRAEL: Tax Authority Faces NIS300MM Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Cohen, writing for Arutz 7, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against the Tax Authority seeks damages of NIS300 million
over a case of discrimination in Israeli tax law.  The suit is
being brought by Yaakov and Ofra Schatz, representing a coalition
representing families -- who claim that the Tax Authority is
discriminating against them, in favor of same-sex couples, by
giving the latter a choice as to which member of the pair is
eligible for an additional tax credit point, while heterosexual
families do not get to choose.

Under Israeli tax law, each individual is awarded a half point
tax credit, while mothers are granted an extra half point for
each child.  The points are applied as deductions to gross
incomes, so the higher an individual's income, the more valuable
the points. As mothers generally earn less than fathers in most
Israeli families, the impact of the tax credit is somewhat muted.
Only mothers are eligible to receive the credits on behalf of
their children.

Same-sex couples who adopt children, however, have the luxury of
applying the tax credits to either of the working "spouses."  As
a result, the lawsuit contends, they enjoy a much greater tax
break than families with male and female partners.  The policy
was instituted last December, the Tax Authority said, and was
designed to end the previous discrimination against same-sex
couples, who were not eligible for tax credit points at all.

The suit was filed for certification on April 27 at the Tel Aviv
District Court.  The suit seeks damages of NIS300 million, and a
change in the Tax Authority's policies.  In a letter accompanying
the lawsuit, attorneys for the Schatz family said that the
situation was unfair and unreasonable.  "Families who have the
same number of children and the same income level end up paying
far different tax rates, only because in families with a female
member, the tax credit points apply only to her even if her
income is lower, while in single-sex partnerships, the couple is
free to apply points to the working spouse with the higher
income."

Yaakov Schatz is an independent patent attorney, and his wife is
a salaried employee.  Her income is far lower than his, and often
her income was not sufficient to take advantage of the tax
credits at all, falling below the taxable level altogether --
while Yaakov paid full taxes, with the point credits "lost."

The Schatz's appealed to the Tax Authority to apply the credit
points to Yaakov's income, and were flatly turned down, with the
Authority saying that the rule which gave an option to couples to
choose which partner could take advantage of the points was
superseded by the rule that if a female is one of the couple, the
credit could only apply to her.  The Schatz's are suing over
discrimination, and have gathered other families to join in as
part of the class action suit.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vaginal Mesh Victims Balk at Products
--------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Maria Markou at
Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, McCartney & Giuffra LLP, last week
the annual shareholder meeting of Johnson & Johnson took place at
its headquarters in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  Despite the
proclamation of approvals and initiation of some recent
prescription medicines and medical devices, a large number of
injured persons, especially from pelvic mesh implants, turned up
at the company and expressed their disapprovals for J&J products.
Their negligence has been so bad, that Corporate Action Network
recently demanded Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate
whether Johnson & Johnson deliberately destroyed the litigation
documents pertaining to its Ethicon mesh devices.

Transvaginal mesh (sometimes referred to as vaginal sling,
vaginal tape, or vaginal patch) is a medical device used to treat
pelvic organ prolapse (POP and.or stress urinary incontinence
(SUI).  J&J has been sued by patients for their defective pelvic
mesh implants, as these devices have reportedly caused them
insuperable pain, infections, bleeding, and urinary problems.
The protested crowd requested responsibility for their injuries
due to the deficient vaginal mesh implants.

These harmed females suffer constantly and seek justice, alleging
that J & J executives were aware that these implants were flawed,
but they didn't take any preventive measures and didn't give any
cautionary advice to their customers.  Teresa Sawyer, a recently
married woman from Ohio spoke about the J&J CEO Alex Gorsky and
stated that he has hurt her because of her vaginal mesh surgery
in 2011, which resulted in tremendous infections, strange immune
conditions, and wrecking of her sex life.  Sudden shock filled
the press conference when Robert Fish from Florida mentioned that
his mother, Darlene, committed suicide in 2011 because of the
intolerable pain caused by mesh implant she had received in 2008.


KARL BISSINGER'S: RecallS Dark Chocolate Bunny Ears
---------------------------------------------------
Karl Bissinger's LLC announced a recall of its Dark Chocolate
Bunny Ears because one lot was mislabeled and contains undeclared
milk.

People who have a severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a
serious or life threatening reaction if they consume this
product.

This product is labeled as:

Bissinger's Dark Chocolate Bunny Ears are packaged in a clear
film with an ingredient card.

Lot Code: 4981 Best By FEB 2015 UPC: 846107009795

The product was distributed to retailers and wholesalers
nationwide from January 28, 2014 through April 4, 2014. Those who
have received this are asked to destroy product and report
affected quantities to Bissinger's for a full refund.

No adverse reactions have been reported to date for a milk
allergen in association with this product.

The recall was initiated after a customer discovered milk
chocolate products in the dark chocolate product packaging. The
dark chocolate labels do not list milk as an ingredient.

Bissinger's regrets any inconvenience this may cause and
customers may call 800-325-8881, Monday-Friday, 9am to 5pm CDT to
discuss questions or concerns.

Granted the title of "Confiseur Imperial" in honor of
confectionery excellence in 17th Century France, Bissinger's --
http://www.bissingers.com/-- has been crafting fine confections
sourcing premium ingredients ever since. We are committed to
crafting high-quality, healthful confections sourcing all-natural
ingredients with social and environmental sustainability.


KCG HOLDINGS: June Briefing Set in Bid to Dismiss "Fernandez"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
litigation related to the August 1, 2012 Technology Issue,
Fernandez v. Knight Capital Group, Inc., is scheduled to be fully
briefed by June 5, 2014, according to KCG Holdings, Inc.'s March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 26, 2012, Knight, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay,
were named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v.
Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. Generally, this putative class action
complaint alleged that the defendants made material misstatements
and/or failed to disclose matters related to the events of August
1, 2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that
he and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased
Knight's Class A Common Stock between January 19, 2012 and August
1, 2012 paid an inflated price.

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it
and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased
Knight's securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012
paid an inflated price. On May 13, 2013, Knight filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of
August 2013. Before the court rendered a decision on the motion
to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
December 20, 2013, alleging generally that the defendants made
material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related
to the events of August 1, 2012.

More specifically, the plaintiff referred to the settlement with
the SEC and alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning Knight's risk management procedures and
protocols, available cash and liquidity, Value at Risk and
internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiff
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the
federal securities laws, claiming that it and a purported class
of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's securities
between May 10, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on February 18, 2014, and the motion is scheduled to be
fully briefed by June 5, 2014.

Knight received several demand letters requesting that it
commence a lawsuit against certain directors and officers for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, wrongdoing,
mismanagement and/or demanding that it produce certain books and
records pursuant to Delaware law concerning the technology issue
and the August 6, 2012 recapitalization. The Company responded to
each of these demand letters and, except as noted in the New York
litigation, none of these letters has resulted in litigation.


KCG HOLDINGS: Suit Over Merger With Knight Capital Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Delaware shareholder actions and New York
shareholder actions over KCG Holdings, Inc.'s merger with Knight
Capital Group, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the litigations, according to KCG Holdings' March 3, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8163-VCP. The complaint names as defendants Knight,
the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an
inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also
alleges that Knight, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted
these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought
includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the
extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder
class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 8159-VCP.

The complaint names as defendants Knight, the Individual
Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants
violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger
price, approving the transaction despite material conflicts of
interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group
that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number of improper deal
protection devices, which allegedly make it less likely that
other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight.
The complaint also alleges that Knight and GETCO aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the
extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs. On January 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated for all purposes the McMillan and Dominique actions
into a single action captioned In re Knight Capital Group, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8159-VCP. On March 5, 2013, the
co-lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action filed an
amended complaint and motions for expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction. In addition to the allegations in the
initial complaints, the Delaware amended complaint contains
allegations that the Knight Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly
deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the
Company's Preliminary Form S-4, filed with the SEC on February
13, 2013 (the "Preliminary Proxy").

                     New Jersey Litigation

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone
Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings
LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC,
GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint
generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price,
agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and
voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other
bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight and
approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest,
including that they were appointed by an investor group that
included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity
defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged
fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants'
approval of the Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO
and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants'
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers
have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone
Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings
LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC,
GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint
generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger price,
agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices and
voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other
bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight and
approving the transaction despite material conflicts of interest,
including that they were appointed by an investor group that
included GETCO.

The complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except
for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the
Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches
of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other
things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers
have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On
February 20, 2013, Knight moved to dismiss or, in the
alternative, stay the New Jersey actions in deference to the
first-filed Delaware actions. The New Jersey court granted the
motion on March 28, 2013, and ordered that the New Jersey actions
be stayed for all purposes in deference to the first-filed
Delaware actions.

                       New York Litigation

On January 15, 2013, Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO,
GA-GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named as defendants in an
action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case
No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
(New York County). The plaintiff, Joel Rosenfeld, is one of the
stockholders mentioned who previously sent Knight a derivative
demand letter. Generally, this complaint asserts both derivative
and class action claims. First, it purports to assert derivative
claims, which allege, among other things, that the seven Knight
directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 breached their
fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by failing to erect
and oversee effective safeguards to prevent against technology
issues, such as the one that occurred on August 1, 2012, for
which Knight incurred a realized pre-tax loss of approximately
$457.6 million. Second, it asserts putative class action claims
resulting from the proposed Mergers for (1) breach of fiduciary
duty against the Individual Defendants; and (2) aiding and
abetting the purported breach of fiduciary duty against GETCO,
GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic.

The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Mergers at an
inadequate price, agreeing to a number of improper deal
protection devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it
less likely that other bidders would make successful competing
offers for Knight, and that certain of Knight's directors have
conflicts of interest in connection with the transaction,
including that certain directors sought to enter into the
transaction to avoid potential liability relating to the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint. With respect to the
merger claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin
the proposed Mergers, rescission of the proposed Mergers (to the
extent they have already been consummated) and attorneys' fees.

With respect to the derivative claims, the plaintiff seeks, among
other things, an order requiring the Knight directors who were
serving as of August 1, 2012 to pay restitution and/or
compensatory damages in favor of Knight and/or the proposed class
of Knight stockholders. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, which, in addition to the allegations in the
initial complaint, contains allegations that the Knight Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing stockholders
with allegedly deficient disclosures about the proposed
transaction in the Preliminary Proxy. On March 21, 2013, the
plaintiff moved by order to show cause for expedited discovery in
support of his claims. The New York court issued an order on
March 25, 2013, setting a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for
April 4, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the parties in the New York
action reached an agreement with respect to the matters raised in
the plaintiff's motion and other aspects of the action, and as a
result, on March 29, 2013, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for
expedited discovery. On April 9, 2013, the New York court granted
permission for the plaintiff to withdraw his motion.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder
actions and New York shareholder action regarding the settlement
of those actions. In connection with the settlement, Knight and
GETCO agreed to make supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 28, 2013 (the
"Proxy Statement"). In addition, Knight and GETCO agreed to make
certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as
to KCG's risk committee charter.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Knight's former stockholders.


KEYCORP: Reaches Settlement in Austin Securities, ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Austin Capital Management, Ltd., Securities
& Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation,
according to Keycorp's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Austin, a subsidiary that specialized in managing hedge fund
investments for institutional customers, determined that its
funds had suffered investment losses of up to approximately $186
million resulting from the crimes perpetrated by Bernard L.
Madoff and entities that he controlled. The investment losses
borne by Austin's funds stemmed from investments in a certain
Madoff-advised hedge fund. Several lawsuits pending against
Austin, KeyCorp, Victory and certain employees and former
employees (collectively the "KeyCorp defendants") alleging
various claims, including negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duties, and violations of federal securities laws and ERISA, were
consolidated into one action styled In re Austin Capital
Management, Ltd., Securities & Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The KeyCorp
defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the
consolidated amended complaint. On December 21, 2012, the court
dismissed 14 of the plaintiffs' 16 claims, including all of the
plaintiffs' securities law and state law claims.  The plaintiffs'
two remaining claims are claims under ERISA.  Following mediation
in October 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation, subject to the preparation of definitive
settlement documentation and approval by the court following
notice to the class members.


KEYCORP: Metyk Plaintiff Appeals to Keep ERISA Suit Alive
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al. is appealing
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to revive
the suit, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Two putative class actions were filed on September 21, 2010, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (the "Northern District of Ohio"). The plaintiffs in these
cases sought to represent a class of all participants in the
company's 401(k) Savings Plan and alleged that the defendants in
the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed to them under ERISA.
These two putative class action lawsuits were substantively
consolidated with each other in a proceeding styled Thomas Metyk,
et al. v. KeyCorp, et al. ("Metyk"). A substantially similar
class action, Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., was dismissed from the
Northern District of Ohio on August 12, 2010. This dismissal was
affirmed by the Sixth Circuit on May 25, 2012. On January 29,
2013, the Northern District of Ohio entered its order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated
complaint for failure to state a claim and entered its final
judgment terminating the Metyk proceeding. On February 19, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the final judgment and to
permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On April 30,
2013, the Northern District of Ohio denied the motion to set
aside the final judgment. Metyk is currently on appeal before the
Sixth Circuit.


KEYCORP: Checking Account Overdraft Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
The case In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, of which
Keycorp is a defendant, is currently on appeal before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to
the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

KeyBank was named a defendant in a putative class action seeking
to represent a national class of KeyBank customers allegedly
harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The case was transferred
and consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion
proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re: Checking
Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the
"District Court"). KeyBank filed a notice of appeal in regard to
the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On August 21,
2012, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court's order
denying KeyBank's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the
case for further consideration. On June 21, 2013, KeyBank filed
with the District Court its renewed motion to compel arbitration
and stay or dismiss litigation. On August 27, 2013, the District
Court granted KeyBank's renewed motion to compel arbitration and
dismissed the case. The case is currently on appeal before the
Eleventh Circuit.


KROGER CO: Strawberry Sorbet Brand Recalled in 13 States
--------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) said April 12 it has recalled Private
Selection Sweet Strawberry Sorbet sold at the company's Kroger
and Jay C stores in 13 states because the product may contain
milk not listed on the label.

People who are allergic to milk could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to
milk, there is no safety issue with the product.

Two Kroger customers have reported a possible allergic reaction
in connection with this product. Out of an abundance of caution,
Kroger has recalled Private Selection Sweet Strawberry Sorbet,
sold in 16 fluid ounce packages with a code date of Aug 11, 2015
and UPC 11110 52108, due to a potential presence of a milk
allergen.

Included in this recall are Kroger and Jay C stores in the
following states only: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia (along the Ohio border).

Not included in this recall are Kroger stores in the company's
Southwest division, which includes the states of Louisiana and
Texas; Kroger stores in the company's Mid-Atlantic division,
which includes stores in North Carolina, eastern West Virginia
and Virginia.

Customers in the impacted states should return the product to
stores for a full refund or replacement.

What Kroger is doing

Kroger has removed potentially affected item from store shelves
and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts
customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products
through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

What customers should do

Customers are asked to carefully check their freezers for the
recalled product. Any opened or unopened products included in
this recall should not be consumed by persons allergic to milk,
and should be returned to their local store for a full refund.

Customers who have questions about this recall may contact Kroger
toll-free at 800-KROGERS (800-576-4377). For more information,
please visit www.kroger.com/recall

Kroger, one of the world's largest retailers, employs more than
375,000 associates who serve customers in 2,640 supermarkets and
multi-department stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia
under two dozen local banner names including Kroger, City Market,
Dillons, Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Harris Teeter, Jay C,
King Soopers, QFC, Ralphs and Smith's. The company also operates
786 convenience stores, 320 fine jewelry stores, 1,240
supermarket fuel centers and 38 food processing plants in the
U.S. Recognized by Forbes as the most generous company in
America, Kroger supports hunger relief, breast cancer awareness,
the military and their families, and more than 30,000 schools and
grassroots organizations. Kroger contributes food and funds equal
to 200 million meals a year through more than 80 Feeding America
food bank partners. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a
proud member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable and the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber's Million Dollar Club.


KROGER CO: Has Misled Consumers of Sunflower Seeds, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Weiss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Kroger Company, an Ohio corporation, Ralphs
Grocery Company, an Ohio corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. BC541622 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 07,
2014) alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
marketed and sold Kroger brand sunflower seeds by omitting the
dangerously high sodium content in the sunflower shells on its
Nutrition Facts label.

This omission and misrepresentation mislead consumers into
purchasing the Defendants' Sunflower Seeds, Mr. Weiss contends.
He alleges that the Defendants' Sunflower Seeds only list the
sodium content of the sunflower kernels and omit the sodium
content on the sunflower shells.

Kroger is an Ohio corporation with a principal place of business
and nerve center located in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Ralphs is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Kroger. The Defendants are national grocery
retailers that market and sell, among other things, private label
Sunflower Seeds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON LLP
          555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
                  c.marker@rlollp.com

               - and -

          Shafiel A. Karim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAFIEL A. KARIM
          13337 South St., Unit 16
          Cerritos, CA 90703
          Telephone: (562) 716-0179
          Facsimile: (562) 204-0688
          E-mail: shafiel.karim@gmail.com


LINNCO LLC: To Settle Suit Over Merger With Berry, Bacchus
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. signed a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the case, according to
LinnCo, LLC's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
No. 13-CV-31365. The action names as defendants Berry, the
members of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Berry ("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub,
Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger
Sub"), LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").

On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks a declaration that
the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order
directing the individual defendants to comply with their
fiduciary duties, an injunction against consummation of the
transactions, or, in the event they are completed, rescission of
the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses, and other relief. On
May 21, 2013, the Colorado District Court stayed and
administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust action in favor
of the Hall action that is pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG. The complaint
names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors,
HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN Energy and LinnCo Merger
Sub. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted
in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material
information regarding the transactions, and that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. In
December 2013, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding
to settle the case, and is in the process of seeking court
approval of the settlement. The Company is unable to estimate a
possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any, at this time.


LINNCO LLC: N.Y. Court Yet to Rule on Motion to Junk Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by LINN Energy, LLC to dismiss a consolidated securities
action filed against it is currently pending before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B.
Rottino (the "Booth Action"). On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A.
Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the
same defendants (the "Fisher Action"). On July 17, 2013, Don
Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A.
Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn,
Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (the "Gentry
Action") (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action
together, the "Texas Federal Actions"). The Texas Federal Actions
each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production.
The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 1 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements
relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration
statement for LinnCo's initial public offering. On September 23,
2013, the Southern District of Texas entered an order
transferring the Texas Federal Actions to the Southern District
of New York so that they could be consolidated with the New York
Federal Actions.

On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis,
Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D.
Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy,
Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo's
initial public offering (the "Luciano Action"). The Luciano
Action asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to LINN
Energy's hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production
in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's initial
public offering.

On July 12, 2013, Frank Donio, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David
B. Rottino (the "Donio Action"). The Donio Action asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production.
Several additional class action cases substantially similar to
the Luciano Action and the Donio Action were subsequently filed
in the Southern District of New York and assigned to the same
judge (the Luciano Action, Donio Action, and all similar
subsequently filed New York federal class actions together, the
"New York Federal Actions"). The Texas Federal Actions and the
New York Federal Actions have now been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Combined Actions"). In November 2013, LINN Energy filed a motion
to dismiss the Combined Actions. The motion is currently pending
before the Southern District of New York. There has not been any
discovery conducted in the Combined Actions.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Amended Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities suit against McDermott
International, Inc. filed a consolidated amended complaint before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged
purchasers of the company's common stock filed purported class
action complaints against the company, Stephen M. Johnson and
Perry L. Elders in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to
represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock between
November 6, 2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading information and
failing to disclose material information relating to weaknesses
in project bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor
project management and losses in each of the company's reporting
segments. Each complaint sought relief, including unspecified
compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other
costs. By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court
consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended
complaint asserts substantially the same claims as were made in
the two original complaints, with some additional factual
allegations, and purports to extend the class period to August 6,
2013. It also seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory
damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs. The
company intends to file a motion to dismiss the case.


MEDTRONIC INC: Suit Over Defibrillation Leads in Pretrial Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings are underway in a lawsuit filed against
Medtronic, Inc. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
Canada over the Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal
injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family
of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified
a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.
The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota over public
statements it made regarding its INFUSE Bone Graft product,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3,
2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding
the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8,
2010 through August 3, 2011.


MT GOX: Settlement Deal to Give Creditors 16.5% Stake
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Casey, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that lawyers for creditors involved in two proposed class-action
lawsuits against Mt. Gox have reached an agreement to support a
group of U.S. investors' bid to revive the bankrupt bitcoin
exchange, an agreement that would give the creditors a 16.5%
stake in the prospective future company.

The creditors' lawyers filed details of the settlement, which
also involved Mt. Gox's former owner and its former chief
marketing officer, with a District Court in Chicago on April 28.

At a separate hearing before the judge on May 1, they were
expected to present their case for that agreement, which in
addition to the equity stake includes prorated disbursements out
of Tokyo-based Mt. Gox's holdings of 200,000 bitcoins and
traditional currency.  The terms would apply to all creditors
worldwide, though it was signed on behalf of U.S. and Canadian
members of the proposed class actions.  If the U.S. court
approves the plan, the investor group, Sunlot Holdings, would
then seek approval of the Japanese court overseeing the
bankruptcy.

The creditors and the buyout group hope their deal will halt the
liquidation proceedings launched by Mt. Gox earlier this month,
which was given the go-ahead by the Japanese court, naming lawyer
Nobuaki Kobayashi as the bankruptcy trustee to oversee that
process.

The Sunlot consortium has repeatedly argued that liquidation
would result in a much smaller recovery value for creditors than
would its plan to revive the exchange and share trading profits
with those former exchange customers.  John Betts, Sunlot chief
executive, has said the bid is aimed not only at improving the
outcome for those creditors but also in sending a message that
the "bitcoin community looks after its own."

According a news release from Sunlot, the consortium along with
Jed McCaleb, who founded Mt. Gox, and former Mt. Gox chief
marketing officer, Gonzague Gay-Bouchery, agreed under the deal
to help the plaintiff creditors in their continued case against
Mt. Gox's majority owner, Mark Karpeles, and his holding company,
Tibanne Co. Ltd.

Mr. McCaleb sold a majority stake in Mt. Gox to Mr. Karpeles in
2011 but retained a 12% stake.

In an email, Mr. Karpeles said, "we provide our support to the
sponsor chosen by the [Japanese] court and supervisor, whichever
ends up being chosen. The court and the supervisor will be
choosing the sponsor that will be most beneficial to the
creditors."

Edelson Managing Partner Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com --
the lawyer who represented the U.S. creditors covered by the
proposed class action said, "Liquidation would have been a
disaster for the U.S. class.  It would have taken significant
time, the assets would have been depleted, and the U.S. consumers
would have gotten pennies on the dollar."

Negotiations between the creditors and the parties to the
agreement were conducted under the oversight of Retired District
Judge Wayne Andersen, of JAMS, who served as an independent
mediator.

In addition to the lawyers for the U.S. and Canadian class-action
creditors who directly approved the settlement, lawyers
representing a separate international group were also engaged in
the negotiations.  The proposed class involved in the
negotiations account for about 50,000 of the "digital wallets"
from which coins are missing, out of a total 127,000, according
to the Sunlot news release.

Mt. Gox, which once accounted for 80% of all bitcoin trading,
filed for bankruptcy protection Feb. 28 and said hacking attacks
and software glitches had caused it to lose 850,000 bitcoins,
worth about $500 million at the time, including 750,000 belonging
to customers.  Since then, it announced that it had recovered
200,000 of those but the remaining 550,000 coins, now worth about
$240 million, continue to be a controversial issue.  Some believe
that with a full audit of Mt. Gox's books and an investigation of
the bitcoin network's universal ledger of transactions, it should
be possible to trace those missing bitcoins.

The Sunlot consortium, which includes bitcoin entrepreneur Brock
Pierce as well as venture capital investors Matthew Roszak and
William Quigley, first entered into negotiations with Mr.
Karpeles in February at a time when the embattled Mt. Gox had
frozen customer accounts.  The subsequent bankruptcy declaration
stymied those talks but the group continued to lobby Mr.
Karpeles, who eventually agreed to their buyout offer and sent a
letter to the court supporting their proposal.

The move to liquidate signaled a charge of course for Mr.
Karpeles and forced the group to launch a last-ditch campaign to
keep their bid alive.  This included setting up a website,
savegox.com, where thousands of burned Mt. Gox customers were
invited to voice their preference for the rehabilitation plan.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Reaches Settlement in Suit v. Extruded Metals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Circuit Court approved a settlement reached in a
suit filed by Gaylord L. Miller against Extruded Metals, Inc.,
according to Mueller Industries, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 28, 2013.

A purported class action was filed in Michigan Circuit Court by
Gaylord L. Miller, and all others similarly situated, against
Extruded Metals, Inc. (Extruded) in March 2012 under nuisance,
negligence, and gross negligence theories.  It is brought on
behalf of all persons in the City of Belding, Michigan, whose
property rights have allegedly been interfered with by fallout
and/or dust and/or noxious odors, allegedly attributable to
Extruded's operations.  Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered
interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties.
They seek compensatory and exemplary damages and injunctive
relief.  The Company reached a settlement that was approved by
the court on September 26, 2013, and the case has been dismissed.
The settlement involves class-wide (the settlement class consist
of all current and former residents of Belding, Michigan) release
of certain property damage claims, certain commitments by
Extruded regarding emissions controls, and a payment of certain
fees and costs.


NEVADA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------
Allison Bell, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that a Las Vegas
lawyer is trying to organize a class-action lawsuit against the
managers of the Nevada public health insurance exchange and a
lead vendor.

The lawyer, Matthew Q. Callister, filed a class-action complaint
in a state court in Clark County, Nev.

The lead plaintiffs are Lawrence Basich and Lea Swartley.  The
plaintiffs name the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange and
the vendor, a unit of Xerox, as the defendants.  Mr. Basich
alleged that he bought and paid for coverage through Nevada
Health Link -- the state-based exchange run by the Silver State
Health Insurance Exchange -- in November.  He said he ended up
with $400,000 in unpaid medical bills because the coverage failed
to take effect Jan. 1.

Ms. Swartley said she ended up with $20,000 in unpaid bills
because exchange and plan service problem interfered with her
efforts to get commercial coverage.

A representative for Xerox said the company hasn't been served
with papers regarding the suit and will respond to the
allegations in the appropriate legal venue.


PRICE CHOPPER: Recalls Mislabeled Tuscan White Bean Hummus
----------------------------------------------------------
Price Chopper Supermarkets issued a voluntary recall on its Price
Chopper Brand Tuscan White Bean Hummus. The product is being
recalled due to it being mislabeled with the ingredient panel for
Price Chopper Sweet Potato Hummus, which does not declare that
the product contains parmesan cheese, a known allergen. Other
than this labeling issue, the product is safe for consumption for
those not allergic to cheese. The affected products were produced
and purchased between March 19, 2014 and April 14, 2014.

Customers who have any of the affected product should return it
to their local Price Chopper for a full refund. For more
information including a full list of the recalled products visit
pricechopper.com or call 800-666-7667, option 3, Monday through
Friday, 8:30am -7pm and Saturday and Sunday from 10am-4pm. In
addition to alerting the media, Price Chopper has initiated its
Smart Reply notification program, which uses purchase data and
consumer phone numbers on file in connection with the company's
AdvantEdge (loyalty) card to alert those households that may have
purchased the product in question.


PURINA ANIMAL: Recalls Poultry Feeds Due Low Vitamin Content
------------------------------------------------------------
The Purina Animal Nutrition LLC feed plant in Portland, Ore., has
initiated a limited recall of certain poultry feeds due to the
potential for lower-than-expected vitamin and trace mineral
levels. The products were distributed to retailers in Oregon and
Washington.

Inadequate vitamin and trace mineral levels can result in health
problems, including mortality, in poultry. No customer complaints
have been received to date.

The products and lot numbers involved in the recall are:

  Formula
  No.      Item Mo.   UPC Code       Product Name     Lot No.
  -------  --------   --------       ------------     -------
  5419     0001381    804273029559   PURINA GAME      4APR08RIV3
                                     BIRD STARTENA    4APR09RIV2
                                     CRUMBLE 50 LB
  510M     0010736    749394513269   DEL'S POULTRY    4APR09RIV3
                                     LAYER PELLET
                                     50 LB
  510T     0010737    749394513276   DEL'S LAYER      4APR08RIV1
                                     CRUMBLE 50 LB
  6022     0015219    883576010792   HOME GROWN       4APR08RIV3
                                     LAYER 16%
                                     CRUMBLE 50 LB
  61R3     0052070    804273038728   PURINA LAYENA    4APR08RIV2
                                     SUNFRESH RECIPE
                                     PELLET 40 LB
  61X3     0057261    804273029542   PURINA START     4APR09RIV2
                                     & GROW SUNFRESH
                                     CRUMBLES 25 LB
  61V3     0057262    804273029559   PURINA START     4APR07RIV3
                                     & GROW SUNFRESH  4APR10RIV1
                                     MP 0.0125%
                                     MEDICATED 50 LB
  61Y3     0057265    804273029573   PURINA START     4APR08RIV2
                                     & GROW SUNFRESH
                                     MP 0.0125%
                                     MEDICATED
                                     CRUMBLES 25 LB
  61Z3     0057277    804273029634   PURINA LAYENA
                                     SUNFRESH RECIPE
                                     PELLET 25 LB    4APR10RIV1
  L55M     5052155    883576003237   ALBERS BROILER
                                     STARTER/FINISHER
                                     CRUMBLES 50 LB  4APR09RIV1
  L55N     5052156    883576003251   ALBERS CHICK
                                     STARTER/GROWER 18%
                                     AMP MEDICATED
                                     CRUMBLES 50 LB  4APR09RIV2

The recalled products were packaged in typical brand-specific
feed bags. Lot numbers are printed on the sewing strip of each
bag. Lot numbers are interpreted as follows:

Example 4APR09RIV1: 4=Year / APR=Month / 09=Day of Month /
RIV=Plant Code / 1=Shift code.

The problem was discovered during the investigation of an
ingredient inventory discrepancy.

Retailers have been contacted and instructed to immediately
withdraw from sale the recalled product and notify customers who
purchased the product. Customers should discontinue feeding the
product immediately. Customers who purchased this product should
return remaining bags to their retailer.

For more information on the product recall, contact Customer
Service at 1-800-245-5333, Monday through Friday 7:00 AM to 4:30
PM PDT.

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

Purina Animal Nutrition LLC is North America's leading feed
company, providing producers, cooperatives and dealers with an
extensive line of animal feed, ingredients and services designed
to help agricultural producers, dealers and cooperatives compete
in the global marketplace.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Partly Dismisses Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in In re Questcor Securities
Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG (FMOx), according to Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of the company's officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. SACv12-1623 DMG (FMOx). The
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2011 and
September 21, 2012. The complaint generally asserts that the
company and certain of the company's officers and directors
violated sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical
evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than
infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in
the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for
Acthar from third-party insurers, and the company's outlook and
potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint seeks damages
in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the
defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with four
subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the
caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623
DMG (FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On October 29, 2013, the company
filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: 9th Cir. Revives Police Officers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a group
of over-40 San Francisco police officers denied promotion when
the city scrapped the results of a 1998 promotional exam may be
entitled to proceed with their age bias allegations as a class,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled April 24.

Reinstating the officers' class claim under California's Fair
Employment and Housing Act, the appeals court applied U.S.
Supreme Court precedent from a securities fraud case to find that
a lower court used the wrong approach in rejecting the proposed
class for failure to raise a common question of law or fact
warranting class treatment.

At the class certification stage, a court reviewing a proposed
class under federal procedural rules may only consider the merits
of the underlying allegations to the extent necessary to
determine whether commonality or some other prerequisite for
class treatment has been met, Judge Marsha S. Berzon said for a
unanimous appeals panel.

Plaintiffs' and management lawyers told Bloomberg BNA that the
decision is a novel one.  They also agreed that the impact of the
decision on employment class actions will likely be significant
and felt well beyond the Ninth Circuit.  They disagreed, however,
on whether that is a welcome development.

"This is a very important issue that I think will have resonance
for courts throughout the country," Joseph M. Sellers of
plaintiffs' class action law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC in Washington said April 25.  He said class certification
has gotten increasingly costly, onerous and time-consuming for
both employees and employers.

"This decision should help that a bit" by avoiding protracted
litigation of the merits of a case at the class certification
stage, he said.  The "foreshortening" of the certification
process "should benefit everyone," he added.

But Gerald L. Maatman Jr., a senior partner with management-side
firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Chicago and New York, told Bloomberg
BNA April 25 that the decision "dilutes" the Supreme Court's
holding in the landmark employment class action Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 112 FEP Cases 769 (2011).  Dukes
is widely viewed as limiting the ability of large groups of
employees to sue collectively for employment discrimination.

"Stockwell makes it easier for the plaintiffs' bar to litigate
workplace class actions," he said.  "Cases will be easier to
certify, and litigation will last longer and pose more risks" for
employers, Mr. Maatman said.

Court Says Merits Analysis Too Extensive

The appeals court found that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California went beyond the limited merits
review in faulting the proposed class's statistical showing of an
age-based disparate impact in the city's 2005 change in its
policy for promotion to the position of assistant inspector.

The trial court ruled that the evidence didn't include a
regression analysis accounting for possible alternative
explanations -- other than age -- for the statistical disparity.

But under the Supreme Court's decisions in Amgen Inc. v.
Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184
(2013) and Dukes, Judge Berzon said, to satisfy the commonality
requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the officers only needed to identify a single common question of
law or fact, and they didn't need to prove that they ultimately
will prevail on that common question.

To satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the officers only needed to identify a
single common question of law or fact, and they didn't need to
prove that they ultimately will prevail on that common question,
the court said.

The officers met their burden by pointing to the San Francisco
Police Department's one-time change in its promotional process
eliminating the results of a 1998 exam that the officers had all
passed and expected to eventually result in their promotion to
assistant inspector, the appeals court ruled.

The court added that the officers backed their identification of
a single, common discriminatory policy with a statistical study
that presumably establishes the age-based disparate impact of the
policy, which is all they needed to do to meet Rule 23(a)(2)'s
commonality requirement.

"[W]hatever the failings of the class's statistical analysis,
they affect every class member's claims uniformly, just as the
materiality issue in Amgen affected every class member
uniformly," Judge Berzon wrote.  The quality of their proof, she
said, is an issue for later in the case, not the class
certification stage.

Officers Were on List for Promotion

According to the opinion, the proposed class members are all
police officers over the age of 40 who took and passed the
department's Q-35 exam for promotion to assistant inspector in
1998 and were placed on a list of candidates eligible for
promotion.

However, they had not yet been promoted by 2005, when the city
announced a new promotion policy aimed at improving operational
flexibility and promotional progression.  As a result of the
change, assistant inspectors were no longer hired for the SFPD's
investigations bureau from the Q-35 list and a new Q-50
sergeant's exam was used instead to fill the duties that
previously had been assigned to assistant inspectors.

The officers sued, initially asserting both age-based disparate
impact and pattern-or-practice claims under FEHA and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.  However, after their first
request for class certification was denied, they amended their
complaint by dropping the pattern-or-practice claim.

A second class certification motion likewise was denied in August
2010 on the ground that the officers' statistical proof fell
short of establishing common questions among the potential class
members, and the officers sought immediate appellate review of
the issue.

ADEA Claim Forfeited

The Ninth Circuit granted the motion for interlocutory review,
but noted that the officers failed to adequately brief their ADEA
claim on appeal and thus forfeited it.  However, the appeals
court found that the district court committed a legal error in
denying certification of their FEHA age bias claim.

Judge Berzon said under Dukes, identifying even a single common
question is sufficient to establish class commonality for
purposes of Rule 23(a)(2).  She said Dukes further held that
while "some overlap" with the case's underlying merits is
inevitable at the class certification stage, any merits review at
that point should be limited to the extent necessary to determine
whether an issue common to the class as a whole exists.

Amgen -- which was "published over a year after the district
court decision here" -- clarified the application of those
principles by holding that "commonality does not require proof
that the putative class will prevail on whatever common questions
it identifies," the Ninth Circuit found.  That Amgen was a
securities fraud case in which class certification was sought
under Rule 23(b)(3) -- rather than Rule 23(a)(2) -- was without
consequence, the court said.

"Rule 23(b)(3) imposes a 'far more demanding' standard than
23(a)(2)," Judge Berzon wrote.

Reliance on Amgen Proper?

Class certification bids under Rule 23(b)(3) also require proof
that the common question is predominant over individual issues in
the case and that the proposed class will be manageable for the
court, Mr. Maatman told Bloomberg BNA.

He said the Ninth Circuit's reliance on a Rule 23(b)(3) ruling
"to make its Rule 23(a)(2) pronouncements" was ironic and
somewhat surprising.

"Rule 23(a)(2) is often a huge road block" in employment class
actions involving pay, promotion and similar decisions "due to
individualized personnel decision-making and individualized
damages," and Dukes "put real teeth into the commonality
requirement," Mr. Maatman said. The Supreme Court in Dukes
confirmed that an analysis of the merits isn't impermissible
provided "the analysis is part and parcel of looking at the issue
of whether plaintiffs established their burden to show all the
Rule 23 prerequisites."

Since Amgen came down, he said, plaintiffs' attorneys have used
it "to argue that district court judges abuse their discretion by
delving 'too much' into the merits." In other words, they use
Amgen to try to "tone down" Dukes, he said.

The instant case "is one of the first to adopt this argument of
the plaintiffs' bar in an employment-related class action
context," Mr. Maatman said.

But Sellers said the Ninth Circuit's reliance on Amgen was
"logical and easily foreseen."  The principle that Amgen supports
is broad and applies equally in the Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule
23(a)(2) -- and the securities fraud and employment -- contexts,
he said.

Potential Influence and Takeaways

Messrs. Sellers and Maatman agreed, however, that the Ninth
Circuit's ruling might prove to be far-reaching in influence.

"I believe the decision will have influence beyond the Ninth
Circuit," Mr. Sellers said.  Dukes and Amgen are both relatively
recent decisions by the Supreme Court, which lower courts are
still trying to make sense of, he noted.

From that standpoint, any case interpreting either Dukes or Amgen
is "significant," he said.  In addition, the issue decided by the
Ninth Circuit of where to draw the line on merits analyses at the
class certification stage really "hasn't been addressed yet,"
Mr. Sellers said.

He added that the decision also "reminds us" that Amgen, Dukes
and other recent Supreme Court class action rulings affect class
cases that are already pending, and may even alter the outcome in
such cases.

"There is a lot of recalibration going on" as a result of the
high court's class rulings, Sellers said.

Mr. Maatman told Bloomberg BNA that he expects "to see widespread
citation of the decision by the plaintiffs' bar all over the
country."  The case also "underscores how important venue is in
class actions," he said, noting that the Ninth Circuit is viewed
as "exceedingly plaintiff-friendly" on class certification
issues, and "demonstrates that national employers are more apt to
be sued there in class actions than in other circuits."

In addition, Mr. Maatman said, the case demonstrates "that
personnel decisions and policies cutting across large groups of
workers are more fertile targets of opportunity for the
plaintiffs' bar."

Judges J. Clifford Wallace and Raymond C. Fisher joined the
opinion.

Michael S. Sorgen, Andrea A. Brott and Ryan L. Hicks --
rhicks@hoyerlaw.com -- of Law Offices of Michael S. Sorgen and
Richard A. Hoyer -- rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com -- of Hoyer and
Associates, all in San Francisco, represented the police
officers. Christine Van Aken, Jonathan C. Rolnick, Dennis J.
Herrer and Elizabeth Salveson of the city attorney's office
represented San Francisco.


SINCO INC: Undeclared Peanut Protein Prompts Gelato Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
SINCO INC is voluntarily recalling from sale Archer Farms
Chocolate Hazelnut Swirl Gelato 30 FL OZ (UPC 085239-703618),
imported from Italy and sold exclusively at Target stores
nationwide. This product may contain traces of peanut protein,
which is not declared on the label. Printed on the edge lid is
the following:

L13-102 BEST BY: 12OCT2014

There have been two reports of an allergic reaction associated
with this item. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to
peanuts should not consume this product. No other Archer Farms
gelato items are included.

The recall was initiated after lab testing detected a possible
presence of peanut protein in one production lot with a Best By
date of October 12, 2014. Other production lots tested negative
for traces of peanut proteins are also being voluntarily
withdrawn as a precautionary measure.

Consumers who have purchased Archer Farms Chocolate Hazelnut
Swirl Gelato imported from Italy may return the product to a
Target store for a full refund. For further questions please call
SINCO at 617-395-6900, Monday - Friday, 9am to 5pm EST.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Has MoU to Settle Suit Over Umpqua Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in In re Sterling Financial Corp. Merger Litigation, Lead
No. 13-2-03848-4 entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the consolidated litigation, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Sterling, its directors and Umpqua Holdings Corporation are named
as defendants in three lawsuits pending in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for Spokane County, which have been
consolidated under the caption In re Sterling Financial Corp.
Merger Litigation, Lead No. 13-2-03848-4. The consolidated
litigation generally alleges that the directors of Sterling
breached their duties to the Sterling shareholders by approving
the Merger, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value,
engaging in a flawed sales process, and agreeing to deal
protection provisions in the merger agreement that are alleged to
unduly favor Umpqua. Umpqua is alleged to have aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of duty. The consolidated litigation also
alleges that the disclosures approved by the Sterling board in
connection with the Merger and the vote thereon are false and
misleading in various respects. As relief, the complaints seek,
among other things, an injunction against consummation of the
Merger, rescission of the Merger if it is effected, damages in an
unspecified amount, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs. The defendants believe that the lawsuits are
without merit. On January 16, 2014 the parties to the
consolidated litigation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated litigation (such
memorandum including plaintiffs' agreement to stay the
consolidated litigation, except for proceedings relating to the
settlement), subject to court approval and other customary
conditions, including the execution of definitive documentation.

The proposed settlement covers all holders of Sterling common
stock (other than the defendants and their immediate families,
heirs and assigns) from and including November 1, 2012 until the
consummation of the Merger. The proposed settlement provides for
the defendants to make certain additional disclosures, which were
included in the proxy statement/prospectus that was mailed to
Sterling shareholders in connection with the special meeting at
which the Merger was approved. The proposed settlement does not
provide for any other consideration from the defendants,
including any monetary consideration (other than potentially
attorneys' fees).


STERLING FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss Retirement System's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corp. moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in a suit filed by the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System, according to the company's Feb. 26,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action
complaint, captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling and certain of its
current and former officers. The Court appointed City of
Roseville Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff on March
9, 2010. On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 by making false and misleading statements concerning the
company's business and financial results. The consolidated
complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling's stock during the
period from July 23, 2008 to October 15, 2009. The consolidated
complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to
disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial real
estate, construction and land development loans, properly record
losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan losses,
thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint. On
March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court held a hearing
on the motion to dismiss. On August 5, 2013, the court granted
the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 11, 2013, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The
amended consolidated complaint names the same defendants,
specifies the same class period, alleges the same violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks the same relief. The amended consolidated complaint
contains similar allegations of improper disclosure regarding
Sterling's lending practices, status of loans and reserving and
accounting for loans. On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.


STRATASYS LTD: Plaintiffs in Objet Merger Suit Abandon Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel in a suit filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware over the merger of Stratasys, Inc. and
Objet Geometries Ltd. offered to withdraw the settlement and to
discontinue the action without requiring payment, according to
the company's March 3, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Stratasys, Inc., the members of its board of directors, and
Objet's two indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries party to the
Stratasys-Objet merger agreement (Seurat Holdings Inc. and
Oaktree Merger Inc.) had been named as defendants in three
purported class action complaints, two of which had been filed in
the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (the " Minnesota Court ") and one of which had been
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Delaware Court"). Objet was also named as a defendant in the
action brought in the Delaware Court. The complaints had
generally alleged that, in connection with approving the
Stratasys-Objet merger, the Stratasys, Inc. directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Stratasys, Inc. stockholders and
that Stratasys, Inc., Objet, Holdco and Merger Sub knowingly
aided and abetted the Stratasys, Inc. directors' breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The complaints sought, among other
things, certification of the case as a class action, an
injunction against the consummation of the transaction, a
judgment against the defendants for damages, and an award of
fees, expenses and costs to plaintiffs and their attorneys.

On October 3, 2013, the company, its subsidiary Stratasys, Inc.
and the other defendants entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs, which was approved by the Delaware Court. The
plaintiffs agreed to a dismissal of the action in the Delaware
Court with prejudice, the voluntary dismissal of the Minnesota
Actions with prejudice and without costs, and the release of all
claims against the defendants, subject to certain conditions. The
defendants agreed not to oppose an award of attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $450,000, to the
plaintiffs. However, before the case was heard, plaintiffs'
counsel offered to withdraw the settlement and to discontinue the
action without requiring payment of legal fees, costs or expenses
by defendants.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Settlement of Overdraft Fees Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida preliminarily approved the settlement agreement reached
in a lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers of Susquehanna
Bancshares, Inc. bank in the United States District Court of
Maryland over its checking account overdraft fees, according to
the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On July 29, 2011, Susquehanna Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers
of the bank in the United States District Court of Maryland. The
suit challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order
of debit card and other checking account transactions. The suit
makes claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and under the
common law for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust
enrichment. The case was transferred for pretrial proceedings to
pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

To avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any of the allegations in the
complaint, Susquehanna in good faith participated in mediation
with plaintiffs' counsel and as a result of negotiations
following from the mediation, on December 20, 2012, Susquehanna
and counsel for plaintiffs entered into a Summary Agreement,
subject to preliminary and final approval of the settlement and
dismissal of the action with prejudice by the Court. On October
25, 2013, Susquehanna and the plaintiffs entered into a
comprehensive agreement to settle the action. On November 13,
2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and
directed that notice of the settlement be sent to prospective
class members.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Faces Off-the-Clock Wages Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a group of current and
former employees filed a class action against Sykes Enterprises
International over unpaid wages.  At issue in the Sykes call
center class action are various requirements on the part of the
employer that sees an employee having to undertake a series of
involved log-in and session initiation procedures, time for which
employees are allegedly not compensated for.

According to the off-the-clock class-action lawsuit, there have
also been times when the system will automatically clock an
employee out for the day, without due regard for what the
employee is actually undertaking at the time.  Should a Sykes
Call Centre employee become immersed in a long session with a
call center client, the employee needs to properly service the
call to its conclusion, followed by the various reporting and
procedures necessary at the end of the day.  With the employee
having already been clocked out for the day at some point prior,
this activity is undertaken on an employee's own time, or so it
is alleged.

A complication in all of this is that not all SEI call center
employees work in a corporate office or structured workplace.
Many work from home, and thus there is no supervision to ensure
an employee is paid for all hours worked.

This kind of alleged call center abuse was well documented a few
years ago when the US Department of Labor issued Fact Sheet 64, a
document outlining some of the more common abuses allegedly going
on at call centers in general, and not just SEI in particular.

It's a document that any conscientious call center employee will
want to have tacked onto the wall of his or her cubicle, or
wherever he or she happens to be working at home.  After all, you
can't go wrong with the US Department of Labor.  The buck stops
with the feds, or so it is assumed.

One of the more recent developments in the Sykes call center
class action was an attempt by one of the parties to lobby for a
change of venue.  However, according to court documents US
District Judge John R. Tunheim, on October 17 of last year,
denied the defendant's motion for a transfer and change of venue.

A new CFO at the helm for SEI

As the off-the-clock wages class-action lawsuit moves forward,
Sykes has a new Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at the helm.
According to the Tampa Bay Business Journal (2/27/14),
John Chapman succeeded former CFO Mike Kipphut as CFO, when Mr.
Kipphut retired April 15.

Whatever lay at the end of the Customer Services Agents Unpaid
Wages lawsuit, it will be Mr. Chapman's job to make the numbers
work in the event of a pre-trial settlement or a judgment for the
plaintiff(s) upon the conclusion of an expected trial.

The Sykes case is but one example of a rash of lawsuits alleging
off-the-clock work, especially when one considers the automation
possibilities with computerized systems.  Amongst the allegations
in the SEI case is that wage tracking is tied to log-in and log-
out times.  The problem, according to plaintiffs, is that there
is a basket of tasks that have to be completed between initial
boot-up and eventual log-in.  Assuming that wage tracking occurs
at log-in, as it is alleged, the suggestion is that call center
employees are not paid for the time spent on boot-up procedures,
pre log-in.

What's more, say plaintiffs, is that automatic log-out at the
conclusion of an employee's scheduled shift does not resolve what
happens should the log-out to occur while an employee is already
engaged in a call with a Sykes or Alpine client.  Therein lay the
possibility and potential for more time spent actively engaged in
work without benefit of compensation, an alleged violation of
unpaid wages law.

Employees are reported as earning from $8 to $11 per hour -- a
rate higher than the federal minimum wage, but a rate that could
effectively drop to below the federal minimum when unpaid
compensation and overtime are factored in.  SEI is reported to
have earned $1.1 billion in revenue for 2011.

Pundits predict there could be in excess of 51,000 potential
plaintiffs in the class.

The case is Williams et al v. Sykes et al, Case No. 0:13-cv-
00946-JRT-JJG at US District Court, District of Minnesota.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Recorded Customers' Phone Calls, Suit Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry O'Shea v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Case No. 30-
2014-00703977-CU-MC-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., February
5, 2014) alleges that UnitedHealth recorded outgoing telephone
calls with customers without notifying them.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zayda Santizo, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., and Does 1-50, Case
No. BC536316 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., February 14,
2014) seeks to recover unpaid wages, and interest thereon, for
off-the-clock work, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees, wage
penalties, and other relief.

Urban Outfitters, Inc. is a California corporation.  Urban
Outfitters is a retail clothing chain operating under multiple
names including Anthropologic, Free People, Terrain, and BHLDN at
multiple locations in California and specifically within Los
Angeles County.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of
the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari E. Moss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
          15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 982-2984
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0389
          E-mail: ari@arimoss.com


US FOODS: High Court Allows Overbilling Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on April 28 allowed class action claims to move
forward against U.S. Foods Inc over alleged overbilling of
customers.  The court declined to hear the company's appeal of a
ruling that allowed the lawsuit filed on behalf of 75,000 of the
food distribution company's customers to go ahead.

In August, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a district judge's decision to certify the class action
claims. Monday's Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for those
claims to proceed in lower courts.

The plaintiffs say the company violated the federal racketeering
statute by inflating the costs of the food it purchased from
suppliers before selling to customers.

US Foods distributes to restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools
and other institutions.

The U.S. government already has made similar claims against the
company under the federal False Claims Act. In 2010, US Foods
agreed to pay $30 million to settle the case.

In December, Sysco Corp said it intended to purchase the company
for $3.5 billion.

The case is US Foods Inc v. Catholic Healthcare West, U.S.
Supreme Court, No. 13-873.


WALTER ENERGY: Environmental Suit v. Walter Coke Currently Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit originally filed as Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc.
and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391 is currently
stayed, according to Walter Energy's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2011, the Company and Walter Coke were named in a suit filed
by Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter
Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil
class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the
alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic,
BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of
current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the
defendants and/or their predecessors. Subsequently, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a
defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to
relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing
after March 2, 1995. Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court
issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and
denying in part the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's
motion, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief was not valid and that class action-related claims must be
dismissed (with leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined
class. In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that
at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be
dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient
pleading. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29,
2012. On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and
motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended
complaint. The Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for
partial dismissal of the second amended complaint on January 10,
2013. On September 30, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum
opinion and order denying the motion. On November 1, 2013, a
joint motion to stay proceeding was filed with the Court, which
the Court granted on November 21, 2013. As a result of the
Court's action, the case is currently stayed.


WALTER ENERGY: Shareholder Litigation in Alabama in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed by purported shareholders Peter Rush and Michael
Carney against Walter Energy Inc. is now in discovery, according
to the company's Feb. 26, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current
and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy,
Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the
complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter
Scheller, the Company's current CEO and a director; and Neil
Winkelmann, former President of Walter's Canadian and U.K.
Operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The
complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported
shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class
of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between
April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May
30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service
Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu
Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel
for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this
action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional
defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim
CEO of Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named
defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court
denied that motion without prejudice. Defendants answered the
complaint on February 15, 2013 and on March 5, 2013. The parties
are now in the process of discovery.


WYETH: BC Court Certifies Premarin, Premplus Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Klein Lyons on April 28 disclosed that the Supreme Court of
British Columbia certified a class action which includes women
who took Premarin in combination with progestin or Premplus,
between January 1, 1977 and December 1, 2003 and were
subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer.  The class action
seeks compensation and alleges that the Defendants failed to
adequately warn of the risks of breast cancer related to these
drugs prior to December 1, 2003.

The Defendants deny the allegations and any liability to class
members.  The Court has not made a determination as to the merits
of class members claims, and the trial of the common issues
certified by the Court in August 2011, is scheduled to start on
October 14, 2014.

Premarin and Premplus are prescription drugs indicated for the
treatment of various conditions, including the relief of
menopausal and post-menopausal symptoms occurring in estrogen
deficiency states.  The Defendants in the class action include
those entities that were authorized to sell Premarin and Premplus
in Canada.

The deadline to become a class member for women who live outside
British Columbia is Monday, August 25, 2014.  Women outside
British Columbia who wish to be included as class members in this
lawsuit must sign an Opt-In Form and return it to the law firm
Klein Lyons before the deadline.  Klein Lyons is the law firm
representing class members in this lawsuit.

Women who live in British Columbia do not need to do anything if
they wish to remain a class member in the class action. They are
automatically included in the class action and will be bound by
any determinations made by the British Columbia Supreme Court at
the common issues trial, although they are encouraged to contact
Class Counsel for more information.

Women who live in British Columbia who do not want to participate
in the class action and be class members must notify Klein Lyons
in writing no later than Monday, August 25, 2014 providing their
name and address and indicating a clear desire not to be part of
this lawsuit.


WYETH: 3rd Circuit Orders Resentencing of Fen-Phen Doctor
---------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer,
reports that a cardiologist who was convicted of mail and wire
fraud for his submission of faulty reports on behalf of claimants
to the Fen-Phen settlement trust could shave a year off of his
sentence, the Third Circuit has ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the
sentence enhancement imposed by the district court due to the
doctor's abuse of his position of trust and his use of a special
skill in the commission of the crime, but it held that the
district court erred by applying a sentencing enhancement for his
leadership role due to his supervisory position over a technician
in his office.

Abdur Razzak Tai was sentenced to six years in prison, and
ordered to pay $4.6 million in restitution, after a jury found
him guilty on all counts.  The appeals court remanded the case
for resentencing on the one issue of the enhancement for Tai's
leadership role.

In order to apply that two-level sentence enhancement, the
district court must find that the supervised person is criminally
responsible.  That finding is absent in this case, Third Circuit
Judge Patty Shwartz said.  She wrote the opinion on behalf of the
three-judge panel.

"Under our precedent, the culpable participation of the person
being supervised is central to the applicability of an upward
adjustment for role," Judge Shwartz said.  "The question here
then is whether the absence of such a finding of criminal
culpability of a participant constitutes plain error.  We
conclude that it does."

Application of the enhancement requires prosecutors to prove that
the person or people who are subordinate to the leader are
criminally responsible for the offense, although they don't have
to be convicted, according to the opinion.

Tai had employed a technician who had done the review of about
1,000 of the echocardiograms, called echoes for short, when he
didn't have the time to do it himself, according to the opinion.
During depositions, the technician had testified that she didn't
know if Tai had read the echoes himself before signing the
physician's report, "but she 'would assume that he did because
there were several times that [she] even asked him' if he agreed
with her conclusions and he sometimes told her she was wrong,"
Judge Shwartz said.

"For one particular lawyer representing Fen-Phen claimants, Tai
signed more than 1,400 Green Forms, and of the 1,173 of those
Green Forms that were audited or reviewed, only 109 were
approved," Judge Shwartz said.  Green Forms are the reports that
are required to show that claimants have the heart condition that
qualifies them to collect from the settlement trust.

Tai had estimated that he had read 12,000 echoes to prepare
reports for claimants' collection from the trust and that he was
owed more than $2 million for his work, according to the opinion.
"For example, one attorney agreed to pay Tai a $100 to $150 fee
for each echo read, plus an additional 'expert fee' of $900 to
$1,000 for each Green Form that the trust approved," Judge
Shwartz said in a footnote.

Tai had initially objected to the use of the leadership-role
enhancement, but withdrew the objection after seeing the
prosecution's sentencing memorandum, Judge Shwartz said,
explaining that the prosecution, then, didn't present evidence to
support the enhancement at sentencing.

The district court explained that it would add the sentencing
enhancement "because he was an organizer, leader, a manager or
supervisor in criminal activity, based on his employment of a
non-physician technologi[st] whom he directed to read
echocardiograms and then prepared and signed a physician's
echocardiogram report falsely implying or asserting the
conclusions were the result of his own observations and
conclusions," according to the Third Circuit opinion.

"Absent from this recitation is any statement about whether the
'technologist' had the requisite state of mind to be deemed
criminally responsible," Judge Shwartz said.

That error affects Tai's substantial rights since it affects the
length of his sentence, Judge Shwartz said.

The two-level enhancement brought Tai's offense level to a 29,
which carries an advisory range of 87 to 108 months, according to
the opinion.  But, the district court made a downward variance of
two offense levels because of Tai's age and health and settled on
a sentence of 72 months.  Without the enhancement, Tai's level
would have started at 27 and, with the same downward variance,
would have gone to a 25, which carries a recommended range of 57
to 71 months, Judge Shwartz said.

"If the district court had again chosen to sentence near the
bottom of that range, then the sentence could have been less than
five years, which is a year shorter than the sentence he
received," Judge Shwartz said.

The appeals court remanded the case for the district court to
make a finding of fact on the culpability of Tai's subordinates
in order to "ensure the integrity of the proceedings," Judge
Shwartz said.

Wyeth was acquired by Pfizer Inc. in 2009.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Ruling Spreads to Pittsburgh Corning
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that January court ruling in the reorganization of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC continues to reverberate
throughout the communities of asbestos plaintiffs and defendants.

According to the report, latest to join the fray is Mt. McKinley
Insurance Co., which provided insurance for Corning Inc. and PPG
Industries Inc., the owners of Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges in 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 Bloomberg report related.

Legal Newsline, a publication of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
told Judge Hodges at a hearing that his opinion in the Garlock
bankruptcy "rocked the world of asbestos litigation," the report
further related.

Pittsburgh Corning confirmed a Chapter 11 plan last year creating
a $3.5 billion trust to pay asbestos claims. Mt. McKinley said in
papers filed on April 4 in the Garlock bankruptcy that some of
the plaintiffs' lawyers in the Garlock case may also have
participated in the Corning bankruptcy.

The insurance company wants Judge Hodges to unseal the evidence
and trial transcript to determine whether the lawyers improperly
withheld evidence or made "demonstrable misrepresentations in
lawsuits around the country."

Mt. McKinley intends to use information it gains to mount motions
to reconsider approval of the Corning plan.

Besides finding fault with the plaintiffs' counsel, Judge Hodges
concluded that $125 million was the "reasonable and reliable"
estimate of present and future liability for mesothelioma claims.
The asbestos claimants sought almost $1.3 billion.

                       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.

                    About Pittsburgh Corning

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Case No. 00-22876) on April 16, 2000,
to address numerous claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.  At the time of the bankruptcy filing, there were
about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court
lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure
to Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos products and typically
requesting
monetary damages in excess of $1 million per claim.

Judge Thomas Agresti handles the bankruptcy case.  Reed Smith LLP
serves as counsel and Deloitte & Touche LLP as accountants to the
Debtor.

The United States Trustee appointed a Committee of Unsecured
Trade
Creditors on April 28, 2000.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the
retention of Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, as counsel to
the Committee of Unsecured Trade Creditors, and Pascarella &
Wiker, LLP, as financial advisor.

The U.S. Trustee also appointed a Committee of Asbestos Creditors
on April 28, 2000.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the retention
of these professionals by the Committee of Asbestos Creditors:
(i)
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered as Committee Counsel; (ii) Campbell
&
Levine as local counsel; (iii) Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. as
special insurance counsel; (iv) Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., as
Asbestos-Related Bodily Injury Consultant; (v) defunct firm, L.
Tersigni Consulting, P.C. as financial advisor, and (vi)
Professor
Elizabeth Warren, as a consultant to Caplin & Drysdale,
Chartered.

On Feb. 16, 2001, the Court approved the appointment of Lawrence
Fitzpatrick as the Future Claimants' Representative.  The
Bankruptcy Court authorized the retention of Meyer, Unkovic &
Scott LLP as his counsel, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP,
as
his special counsel, and Analysis, Research and Planning
Corporation as his claims consultant.

In 2003, a plan of reorganization was agreed to by various
parties-in-interest, but, on Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order denying the confirmation of that plan, citing
that
the plan was too broad in addressing independent asbestos claims
that were not associated with Pittsburgh Corning.

On Jan. 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended
PCC Plan) -- which addressed the issues raised by the Court when
it denied confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court.

As reported by the TCR on April 25, 2012, Pittsburgh Corning,
which is a joint venture between Corning Inc. and PPG Industries
Inc., filed another amendment to its reorganization plan designed
to wrap up a Chapter 11 begun 12 years ago.

PCC's balance sheet at Sept. 30, 2012, showed $29.41 billion in
total assets, $7.52 billion in total liabilities and $21.88
billion in total equity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $699MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed that its estimated asbestos liability was
$699 million as of December 31, 2013, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Had 140 Fibro Cases Pending at Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 140 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX
Corporation and its subsidiaries at Jan. 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.

Several of GATX's subsidiaries have been named as defendants or
co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to
asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages
based on common law, statutory or premises liability or, in the
case of ASC, the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to
certain maritime employees. As of January 31, 2014, there were
140 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX and its
subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 116 are Jones
Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the year
2000. During 2013, 10 new cases were filed, and 61 cases were
dismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterial
amount. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries.
It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for
indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases,
including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the
future.

GATX Corporation (GATX) leases, operates, manages and remarkets
long-lived, widely-used assets, primarily in the rail and marine
markets. The Company operates through four primary business
segments: Rail North America, Rail International, American
Steamship Company (ASC) and Portfolio Management. GATX and its
rail affiliates lease tank cars, freight cars and locomotives in
North America, Europe and India. As of December 31, 2012, GATX's
wholly-owned fleet consisted of approximately 131,000 railcars
and 561 locomotives. GATX also has an ownership interest in
approximately 30,000 railcars through investments in affiliated
companies. Affiliate fleets consist primarily of freight and
intermodal railcars. In addition, GATX manages fleets for an
affiliate and other third-party owners of approximately 5,200
railcars.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Estimates Fibro Liability at $254.7MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Ltd. estimates its liability for asbestos-related claims
at $254.7 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.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other
companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These
cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily
on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

As of December 31, 2013, there were approximately 2,000 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,200 claims outstanding as of
December 31, 2013. This amount is not adjusted for claims that
are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect
defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately
reflect our current estimate of the number of viable claims made
against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed
responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures.
In addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending
against third parties for which we have been provided an
indemnification.

Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $254.7
million and $278.9 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012,
respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities
in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims
and related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance
recoveries was $119.6 million and $131.0 million at December 31,
2013 and 2012, all of which was acquired in the Merger, and was
recorded in Other non-current assets in the Consolidated Balance
Sheets."

Pentair Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd is
global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection
partner. The Company operates in three segments: Water & Fluid
Solutions, Valves & Controls, and Equipment Protection & Thermal.
Water & Fluid Solutions is a provider of water management and
fluid processing products and solutions. Valves & Controls is the
manufacturers of valves, actuators and controls. Valves &
Controls segment's products, services and solutions address
applications in the general process, oil and gas, power
generation and mining industries. Equipment Protection & Thermal
is a provider of products focused on electronics and electronic
equipment, and is a provider of electric heat management
solutions. In December 2013, The Sterling Group, announced that
Safe Fleet, has completed the acquisition of FoamPro from Pentair
Ltd. In January 2014, PGG Wrightson Ltd acquired Water Dynamics
and Aquaspec Ltd from Pentair Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $121.1MM Insurance Coverage for Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., had $121.1 million available insurance
coverage to cover current and future asbestos claims payments and
certain expense payments, 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: "At December 31, 2013, we had $121.1 million
of insurance coverage we believe is available to cover current
and future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments.
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (GST) has collected insurance
payments totaling $74.0 million since June 5, 2010. Of the $121.1
million of available insurance coverage remaining, we consider
$120.0 million (99%) to be of high quality because the insurance
policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose
credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and
whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. We consider
$1.1 million (1%) to be of moderate quality because the insurance
policies are written with various London market carriers. Of the
$121.1 million, $85.1 million is allocated to claims that were
paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the Chapter 11
proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $86.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
substantially all of the $121.1 million of insurance proceeds
will ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance
that the insurance companies will make the payments as and when
due. The $121.1 million is in addition to the $20.8 million
collected in 2013. Based on those agreements and policies, some
of which define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of
which limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we
anticipate that $39.1 million will become collectible at the
conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected in the years set out below
regardless of when the case concludes:

         2014 -- $20 million
         2015 -- $20 million
         2016 -- $18 million
         2017 -- $13 million
         2018 -- $11 million

GST LLC has received $7.2 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007 and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the $121.1 million of
anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general
liability policies that cover Coltec and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered
industrial products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61
primary manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries,
including the United States. The Company operates in three
segments: Sealing Products segment, Engineered Products segment
and Engine Products and Services segment. Sealing Products
segment includes its sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end
components, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber
products. Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings,
aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications and reciprocating
compressor components. Engine Products and Services segment
manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel,
natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014,
the Company's subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining
interest of the Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $466.8MM Fibro Liability Accrual
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., reported that its claims liability
accrual was $466.8 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.

The Company states: "Our recorded asbestos liability as of the
Petition Date was $472.1 million. We based that recorded
liability on an estimate of probable and estimable expenditures
to resolve asbestos personal injury claims under generally
accepted accounting principles, made with the assistance of
Garrison and an estimation expert, Bates White, retained by
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's counsel. The estimate
developed was an estimate of the most likely point in a broad
range of potential amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve
asbestos claims (by settlement in the majority of the cases
except those dismissed or tried) over the ten-year period
following the Petition Date in the state court system, plus
accrued but unpaid legal fees. The estimate, which was not
discounted to present value, did not reflect GST LLC's views of
its actual legal liability; GST LLC has continuously maintained
that its products could not have been a substantial contributing
cause of any asbestos disease. Instead, the liability estimate
reflected GST LLC's recognition that most claims would be
resolved more efficiently and at a significantly lower total cost
through settlements without any actual liability determination.

Neither we nor GST has endeavored to update the accrual since the
Petition Date except as necessary to reflect payments of accrued
fees and the disposition of cases on appeal. After those
necessary updates, the liability accrual at December 31, 2013 was
$466.8 million. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has
been resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability
has been determined as part of a consensual plan of
reorganization agreed to by the debtor and its creditors,
including asbestos claimants and a representative of potential
future claimants. GST does not believe that there is a reliable
process by which an estimate of such a consensual resolution can
be made and therefore believes that, prior to the resolution of
liability in GST's Chapter 11 proceeding, there is no basis upon
which it can revise the estimate last updated prior to the
Petition Date. In addition, we do not believe that we can make a
reasonable estimate of a specific range of more likely outcomes
with respect to the asbestos liability of GST.

In a proposed plan of reorganization filed by GST and opposed by
claimant representatives, GST has proposed to resolve all pending
and future claims. GST has estimated that the amounts to be paid
into the trust created by the plan for payments to future
claimants, plus the indemnity costs incurred under the plan to
pay present claimants, would be approximately $270 million.

The proposed plan of reorganization includes provisions that
would resolve any and all alleged derivative claims against us
based on GST asbestos products. The provisions specify that we
would fund $30 million of the amount proposed to be paid into the
trust to pay future claimants and would guarantee the obligations
of GST under the plan. Those provisions are incorporated into the
terms of the proposed plan only in the context of the specifics
of that plan, which would result in the equity interests of GST
being retained by GST's equity holder, the reconsolidation of GST
into the Company with substantial equity above the amount of
equity currently included in our consolidated financial
statements, and an injunction protecting us from future GST
claims.

As stated previously, GST intends to incorporate the judge's
recent decision estimating GST's liability for mesothelioma into
a plan of reorganization that it will submit in place of the
current proposed plan. GST has not yet determined the amount that
it will propose be included in the revised plan. We cannot
predict when a plan of reorganization for GST might be approved
and effective nor can we predict the amount of funding that a
confirmed plan will require. An estimation trial for the purpose
of determining the number and value of allowed mesothelioma
claims for plan feasibility purposes commenced on July 22, 2013,
and concluded on August 22, 2013. On January 10, 2014, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order estimating GST's liability for
present and future mesothelioma claims at $125 million,
consistent with the positions that GST put forth at trial. The
Court's estimate is for mesothelioma claims only. Additional
amounts may be necessary to resolve other disease claims and
trust administration costs. This estimation decision does not end
the case; there are many potential hurdles, including appeals,
that may arise prior to plan confirmation.

Our recorded asbestos liability at the Petition Date was $472.1
million. As of the Petition Date, we had remaining insurance and
trust coverage of $192.4 million, which included $156.3 million
in insured claims and expenses our subsidiaries have paid out in
excess of amounts recovered from insurance. These amounts are
recoverable under the terms of our insurance policies, subject to
potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries, and
have been billed to the insurance carriers."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered
industrial products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61
primary manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries,
including the United States. The Company operates in three
segments: Sealing Products segment, Engineered Products segment
and Engine Products and Services segment. Sealing Products
segment includes its sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end
components, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber
products. Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings,
aluminum blocks for hydraulic applications and reciprocating
compressor components. Engine Products and Services segment
manufacture, sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel,
natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014,
the Company's subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining
interest of the Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ametek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ametek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate
to businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not
involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company
or relate to previously owned businesses of the Company which are
under new ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits,
the sellers or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be,
have agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the
"Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered
to, and are being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These
sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the
future; however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy
liquidation in 2007. As of December 31, 2013, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-
related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong defenses to
the claims being asserted and intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in these matters.

AMETEK, Inc. (AMETEK) is a global manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in
North America, Europe, Asia and South America. The Company
markets its products worldwide through two groups: the Electronic
Instruments Group (EIG) and the Electromechanical Group (EMG).
EIG builds monitoring, testing, calibration and display devices
for the process, aerospace, industrial, power and medical
markets. EMG produces engineered electromechanical connectors for
hermetic (moisture-proof) applications, specialty metals for
niche markets and brushless air-moving motors, blowers and heat
exchangers. End markets include aerospace, defense, mass transit,
medical, office products and other industrial markets. In January
2014, the Company acquired Teseq Group. In February 2014, the
Company acquired VTI Instruments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury arising from exposure to
asbestos found in some facilities of the Company, 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.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been
named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits
filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure
to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned
by subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004
and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business,
to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now
an affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements
regarding separation of the generating business from CenterPoint
Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate financial
responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating to the
generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but
CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such claims
to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense by the NRG affiliate. Although their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Energy intends to
continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider
to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does not
expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc., is a domestic energy delivery company.
The Company's business segments include Electric Transmission and
Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution, Competitive Natural Gas
Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines, Field Services and
Other Operations. The Company serves metered customers primarily
in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and
Texas. The company also owns a 58.3% interest in a midstream
partnership it jointly controls with OGE Energy Corp. with
operations in natural gas and liquids-rich producing areas of
Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Settles Mississippi Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc has reached an agreement in principle with certain
plaintiffs to settle asbestos-related lawsuits filed in
Mississippi, 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 certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

In December 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of
the plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a
nominal amount. The settlements are subject to the approval of a
special master to be appointed by the Court. While we believe the
special master's recommendations will be accepted by the
plaintiffs and approved by the Court, there can be no assurances
as to the ultimate outcome.

We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and
have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and
challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still
ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the
nature of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot
reasonably determine how many of the claimants may have valid
claims under the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential
liability exposure, if any.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect the
final disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to
have a material adverse effect upon our financial position,
operating results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to
the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is a provider of offshore contract drilling
services to the international oil and gas industry. As of
December 31, 2011, its rig fleet included seven drillships, 13
dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs, seven moored
semisubmersible rigs, 49 jackup rigs and one barge rig. Its
customers include national and international oil companies. On
May 31, 2011, the Company completed a merger transaction (the
Merger) with Pride International, Inc., (Pride), ENSCO
International Incorporated, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
and predecessor of Ensco plc (Ensco Delaware), and ENSCO Ventures
LLC, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc (Merger
Sub). Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Merger Sub
merged with and into Pride, with Pride as the surviving entity
and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc. In
February 2014, Ensco PLC sold its two remaining cold-stacked
jackup rigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.,
which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate
defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named
as a defendant.  Brandon was defending against 7,815 claims as of
January 31, 2014.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney
were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales,
Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because
Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and
because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to,
or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to
products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong
defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. As of
January 31, 2014, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or
dismissal, 9,788 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining
11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During
2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

For the same reasons with respect to Albany's claims, as well as
the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon
claims since 2001, the Company does not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to these remaining claims.

In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). The Company acquired certain
assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege
injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have
been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition.
Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its
contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has
successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions.

Although the Company does not believe that a meaningful estimate
of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such
claims, based on the Company's understanding of the insurance
policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to
various policies, the Company's settlement experience, the
absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the
ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the
defenses available, the Company currently does not anticipate any
material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing
insurance limits.

Consequently, the Company currently does not anticipate, based on
currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of
the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse
effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows of the Company. Although the Company cannot predict the
number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing
factors and the trends in claims against the Company to date, the
Company does not anticipate that additional claims likely to be
filed against it in the future will have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows. The Company is aware that litigation is inherently
uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on
determinations of factual matters to be made by juries.

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: Widow Allowed to Modify Personal Injury Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware granted the plaintiffs in an
asbestos-related personal injury action leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint, to eliminate any reference to Huntington
Ingalls Industries, Inc., as defendant and replace it with a
reference to HI Inc.

The case is MARGUERITE MACQUEEN, Individually and as the
Surviving Spouse of David MacQueen, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-831-
SLR-CJB (D. Del.).  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's
memorandum order dated April 1, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/JOyTZKfrom Leagle.com.

Marguerite MacQueen, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented
by Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq., and Raeann Warner, Esq., at Jacobs &
Crumplar, P.A.

3M Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Donald
E. Reid, Esq. -- dreid@mnat.com -- at Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell LLP.

Aerco International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Ana Marina McCann, Esq. --
ammccann@mdwcg.com -- Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Esq. --
ajdellaporta@mdwcg.com -- and Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. --
JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald Robert Kinsley, Esq. --
drk@maronmarvel.com -- and Paul A. Bradley, Esq. --
pab@maronmarvel.com -- at Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Automatic Switch Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald Robert Kinsley, Esq., and Paul A.
Bradley, Esq., Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Penelope B. O'Connell, Esq. --
poconnell@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Matthew P. Donelson, Esq. --
mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

Buffalo Pumps Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by:

         Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq.
         WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA
         901 North Market Street Suite 810
         Wilmington, DE, 19801
         Tel: (302) 4219938

Cameron International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Ana Marina McCann, Esq., Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Esq., and Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq., at Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz
Campbell LLC.

CLA-VAL Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq., at Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Mary Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Esq. --
kharmon@rjm-law.com -- and R. Stokes Nolte, Esq. -- rnolte@rjm-
law.com -- at Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Combination Pump & Valve, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Krista Reale Samis, Esq. --
ksamis@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas
E. Skiles, Esq., and Allison L. Texter, Esq., at Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joseph S. Naylor, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Electrolux North America Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Paul A. Bradley, Esq., at Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Elliott Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Kelly A. Costello, Esq. --
kcostello@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Ericsson Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Gardner Denver Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Krista Reale Samis, Esq., at Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Robert S. Goldman, Esq., at Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A..

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Hyde Windlass Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Robert Karl Beste, III, Esq. -- rbeste@skjlaw.com -- at Smith,
Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by  Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Esq. --
mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- at Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty
& Kelly, P.C.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Ana Marina McCann, Esq., Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Esq., and Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq., at Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Northeast Controls Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Mary Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Esq., and R.
Stokes Nolte, Esq., at Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Parker-Hannifan Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Theodore William Annos, Esq. --
tannos@mccarter.com -- at McCarter & English, LLP.

Patterson Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David C. Malatesta, Jr., Esq. --
dmalatesta@kentmcbride.com -- at Kent & McBride, P.C..

Ross Controls International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David G. Culley, Esq. -- dculley@trplaw.com -- at
Tybout, Redfearn & Pell.

Siemens Water Technologies Transport Corp., as Successor to,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by Daniel Partick Daly, Esq. -- ddaly@kjmsh.com -- at Kelley
Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spence Engineering Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq., at
Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Paul A. Bradley, Esq., and Stephanie Ann Fox, Esq.
-- saf@maronmarvel.com -- at Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Tate Andale Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson,
Esq. -- ethompson@mklaw.us.com -- at McGivney & Kluger, P.C.

The Marley-Wylain Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Matthew P. Donelson, Esq., at Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Trane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq., at Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Wabtec Company, as Successor to, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Esq., at
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq., at Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Bids Granted in Ford v. Garlock
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Max Cogburn, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued orders in
the lawsuit captioned FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-00171-
MOC (W.D.N.C.), granting the motions for admission pro hac vice
filed by certin lawyers.

Specifically, Judge Cogburn ruled the following:

   (a) Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee's Motion for Admission Pro Hac
       Vice is granted, and Mr. LeFevre-Snee is allowed to appear
       in the case while associated with Jodi D. Hildebran.  A
       full-text copy of Judge Cogburn's Decision is available
       at http://is.gd/ius2jHfrom Leagle.com.

   (b) Michael H. Brady's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is
       granted, and Mr. Brady is allowed to appear in this case
       while associated with Kirk G. Warner.  A full-text copy of
       Judge Cogburn's Decision is available at
       http://is.gd/NCYU8rfrom Leagle.com.

   (c) John Stephen Favate's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is
       granted, and Mr. Favate is allowed to appear in this case
       while associated with Jodi D. Hildebran.  A full-text copy
       of Judge Cogburn's Decision is available at
       http://is.gd/MoKCvOfrom Leagle.com.

   (d) E. Duncan Getchell, Jr.'s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vic
       is granted, and Mr. Getchell is allowed to appear in this
       case while associated with Kirk G. Warner.  A full-text
       copy of Judge Cogburn's Decision is available at
       http://is.gd/0hSWotfrom Leagle.com.

   (e) K. Elizabeth Sieg's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is
       granted, and Ms. Sieg is allowed to appear in this case
       while associated with Kirk G. Warner.  A full-text copy of
       Judge Cogburn's Decision is available at
       http://is.gd/5ouOHMfrom Leagle.com.

Ford Motor has filed a motion unseal the records in the Garlock
bankruptcy case, hoping to obtain evidence it needs to derail
asbestos lawsuits against itself.  Ford, like many manufacturers,
has been named in thousands of lawsuits as plaintiff lawyers
mount an aggressive search for solvent defendants to sue, after
most of the companies that made and sold dangerous asbestos
products like pipe insulation have filed for bankruptcy
protection to settle claims.  Judge George Hodges, the bankruptcy
judge overseeing Garlock's case, has said Ford can ask a federal
district court to decide on its request.

Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff, represented by E. Duncan Getchell,
Jr., Esq. -- dgetchell@mcguirewoods.com -- Karen Elizabeth Sieg,
Esq. -- bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- and Michael H. Brady, Esq. --
mbrady@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods, LLP, and Kirk
Gibson Warner, Esq. -- kwarner@smithlaw.com -- at Smith Anderson
& McGuireWoods, LLP.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Jonathan C.
Krisko, Esq. -- jkrisko@rbh.com -- and Richard Charles Worf, Jr.,
Esq. -- rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A..

Resolute Management, Inc., AIU Insurance Company, American Home
Assurance Company, Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of
Pennsylvania, Granite State Insurance Company, Lexington
Insurance Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pa., represented by Henry T.M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq. --
hlefevre-snee@hkmpp.com -- and John Stephen Favate, Esq., at
Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto, P.A.; and Jodi Danielle
Hildebran, Esq. -- jhildebran@allmanspry.com -- at Allman Spry
Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Movant,
represented by Travis Waterbury Moon, Esq. --
tmoon@mwhattorneys.com -- at Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC & Trevor
W. Swett, III, Esq. -- tswett@capdale.com -- at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered.

                       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: Conalco Dismissed as Defendant in "Bode" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 18, 2013, Jason Bode brought a lawsuit against Aerco
International, Inc., and several other defendants in the Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois alleging
tort claims related to wrongful death arising from asbestos.
Subsequently, on December 18, 2013, Defendant Consolidated
Aluminum sought to remove the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois as being related to
Conalco's bankruptcy already pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The Plaintiff
filed a formal motion to dismiss Conalco from the suit and to
remand the case back to state court.  Along with the motion, the
Plaintiff attached a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice
and Withdrawal of Notice of Removal and Stipulation to Remand.

In an order dated April 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stephen C.
Williams of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, dismissed, without prejudice Conalco from
the lawsuit, and granted Bode's Motion to Remand.

The case is JASON BODE, Individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of DAVID L. BODE, deceased, Plaintiff, v. AERCO
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1310-SCW
(S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision
is available at http://is.gd/gZIaOJfrom Leagle.com.

Jason Bode, Plaintiff, represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq. --
randy@gorijulianlaw.com -- and Gail G. Renshaw, Esq. --
grenshaw@gorijulianlaw.com -- at Gori Julian and Associates P.C..

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Carla C. Storm, Esq. -- cstorm@foleymansfield.com
-- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Carboline Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq. --
khill@heylroyster.com -- at Heyl, Royster et al..

Corrigan Company Mechanical Contractors Inc, Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Paul P. Waller, III, Esq., at Walker &
Williams.

Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Esq. -- bbultman@smsm.com -- at Segal, McCambridge,
Singer & Mahoney.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Brian J. Huelsmann, Esq. --
bhuelsmann@heplerbroom.com -- at Hepler Broom et al.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al..

Industrial Holding Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq. --
mchessler@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J. Chessler, Esq., at
HeplerBroom LLC.

Johnston Boiler, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael W. Newport, Esq. -- mnewport@foleymansfield.com -- at
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Riley Power Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl,
Royster et al..

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

                    About Consolidated Aluminum

Consolidated Aluminum Corp., an indirect subsidiary of
Switzerland-based Lonza Group AG, filed a Chapter 11 petition
on Dec. 15 in Newark, New Jersey, to deal with personal-injury
lawsuits.

Allendale, New Jersey-based Conalco ceased operations in 1994
when the business was sold. Since then, the company has been
managing lawsuits arising from exposure to asbestos and coal tar
pitch.

The petition lists assets for less than $1 million and debt
exceeding $50 million. Liabilities include $72.7 million owing to
the parent Lonza America Inc.

The case is In re Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 13-bk-37149, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).

Debtor's Counsel: Sharon L. Levine, Esq.
                  LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
                  65 Livingston Avenue
                  Roseland, NJ 07068
                  Tel: 973.597.2500
                  Fax: 973.597.2400
                  Email: slevine@lowenstein.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harley-Davison's Insurance Suit Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------
In an insurance coverage case before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin is Plaintiff Harley-Davidson
Inc.'s motion to remand the matter to the Milwaukee Country
Circuit Court, contending that neither the amount in controversy
nor complete diversity have been established for the purposes of
federal diversity jurisdiction.  In opposition, Defendant
Travelers Indemnity Company contends that Harley's remand motion
is improper and should be denied because the Court did not have
the opportunity to determine whether the London Insurers should
be joined, and Harley is relying on an inoperative complaint.
Travelers further contends that, if addressed, joinder should be
denied and the Court should retain jurisdiction over this case.
No other Defendant takes a position with respect to Harley's
motion

However, with leave of the Court, the Defendants Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy No.
547/640388KB, including Lloyd's Syndicates 989, 279, 618, 278,
948, 210, 918, 553, 175, 408, 99, 471, 661, 518, and 346;
Stronghold Insurance Company Limited; and CNA Reinsurance of
London Ltd. filed a reply to Travelers' response contending that
Travelers mischaracterized the follow form provision of the
London Policy and that its reference to the "Defense, Settlement
and Supplementary Payments" provision was unfounded and contrary
to the interpretation of the policy agreed upon by the parties to
the policy.  The London Insurers further assert that the defense
cost provisions in the underlying Lexington Insurance Company
Umbrella Policy number 5003325 are not relevant to whether
federal diversity jurisdiction exists over the London Insurers.

Defendant ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company, f/k/a CIGNA
Property & Casualty Insurance Company, as successor in interest
to Motor Vehicle Casualty Company, but only as to policies issued
through Cravens, Dargan & Company, Pacific Coast, also responded
to Travelers' response and requests that the Court refrain from
interpreting those policies.  First State also responded to
Travelers' response and requests that no determinations be made
regarding the First State policy.

Harley originally filed the action in the Circuit Court for
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, seeking damages based on the alleged
breaches of 10 Defendant domestic primary and excess insurers'
duty to defend and to indemnify Harley with respect to a series
of asbestos-related claims against it.  Harley also sought
declaratory judgment holding that the 10 Defendants are liable
for all amounts paid or to be paid by Harley for its defense,
settlement, and/or judgments in connection with Harley's past,
pending, and future asbestos claims for any periods of
noninsurance until all other applicable primary and excess
coverage has been exhausted.

In a decision and order dated April 3, 2014, District Judge
Rudolph T. Randa, granted Harley's motion to remand for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the action to the
Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

The case is HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC., Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT
& INDEMNITY COMPANY; THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY;
NORTHBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY now known as Allstate Insurance
Company; MANHATTAN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY now known as
Westport Insurance Company; MOTOR VEHICLE CASUALTY COMPANY now
known as Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company; FIRST STATE
INSURANCE COMPANY; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON
subscribing to POLICY NO, 547/640388KB including LLOYD'S
SYNDICATES 989, 279, 618, 278, 948, 210, 918, 553, 175, 408, 99,
471, 661, 518 AND 346; STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; and
CNA REINSURANCE OF LONDON LTD, now known as CX Reinsurance
Company Limited; Defendants, CASE NO. 12-C-691 (E.D. Wis.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Randa's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/zS2ZmJfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed a pro se civil rights action
filed by Plaintiff Edwin Jay Hutchison, a state prisoner
incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.  In his first amended
complaint, the Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that he was
exposed to asbestos and lead at the CALPIA furniture factory
where he worked.  Judge Wilken found that the Plaintiff fails to
state a cognizable claim for fraudulent concealment.

The case is EDWIN JAY HUTCHISON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON
INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C 13-4635 CW
(PR) (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Wilken's Decision
dated April 4, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/PCsox3from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Skelton" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Crane Co. moves
for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-
claims asserted against it on the ground that there is no
evidence to show that plaintiffs' decedent Donald T. Skelton was
exposed to asbestos from a Crane product.  The motion is denied
in a decision and order dated April 4, 2014, penned by Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County.

The case is EILEEN C. SKELTON, Individually and as Executrix for
the Estate of DONALD T. SKELTON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 103009/08, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/QyObjbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four-Month Trial Ends With $12.5MM Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a New York Supreme Court jury has awarded a $12.5 million
verdict for three construction workers' families in a four-month
long asbestos trial.

The four-month legal battle began in Justice Barbara Jaffe's
courtroom in November and came to an end on March 18 with a $12.5
million award in damages.

Represented by the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm, claimants Harry
Brown, Patrick McCloskey and Carl Terry were each diagnosed with
mesothelioma. Interview requests from the law firm have gone
unanswered.

Brown worked as an insulator in the 1950s and 1960s building
power houses for Consolidated Edison Co. of New York. Brown was a
member of the Heat and Frost Insulators Local 12 Union during his
employment.

The jury awarded Brown's estate $3.5 million and found Con Edison
30 percent liable.

McCloskey worked as a steamfitter during the original
construction of the World Trade Center. He alleges his exposure
is due to asbestos fireproofing spray applied during
construction.

Defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co applied the asbestos spray
was found to be 25 percent liable for acting with reckless
disregard for the safety of those working at the site.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned the World
Trade Center site, and its general contractor and agent Tishman
Realty and Construction were both found not liable in both the
Brown and McCloskey cases.

McCloskey's estate was awarded $6 million.

However, Mario & DiBono was found not liable in Brown's case.
Likewise, Con Edison was found not liable in McCloskey's case.

McCloskey was a member of the Steamfitters Local 638 Union during
his career.

Terry worked as an electrician with the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local 1 Union. He worked at job sites
throughout New York. Eaton Corp. and Cutler Hammer Inc.
manufactured asbestos-containing electrical components and were
the only defendants in Terry's suit left at the time of verdict.

The jury awarded Terry's estate $3 million and found Eaton and
Cutler Hammer 15 percent liable.

Jaffe entered an order on March 20 providing the eight jurors
with a lifetime exemption from further jury service in New York
County because the group served for more than 30 days during the
course of this trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lurking Beneath Byzantine Wall Paintings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Castro, writing for Live Science, reported that hundreds
of years before asbestos became ubiquitous in the construction
industry, Byzantine monks used the fibrous material in plaster
coatings underlying their wall paintings during the late 1100s,
new research shows.

Asbestos is a type of natural, rock-forming mineral known for its
ability to separate into long, flexible fibers. It has long been
thought that asbestos fibers, which are corrosion- and
combustion-resistant, were first integrated into such things as
plaster, finish coatings and floors after the Industrial
Revolution.

But while investigating the 12th-century paintings in the
Byzantine monastery Enkleistra of St. Neophytos in Cyprus, UCLA
researchers discovered the magnesium silicate mineral, chrysotile
(white asbestos), in the finish coating of the plaster underneath
a portion of a wall painting. The chrysotile provided a smooth
layer with a mirrorlike surface for the painting.

"[The monks] probably wanted to give more shine and different
properties to this layer," said UCLA archaeological scientist
Ioanna Kakoulli, lead author of the new study, published online
last month in the Journal of Archaeological Science. "It
definitely wasn't a casual decision  -- they must have understood
the properties of the material."

A long history of use

Though all six asbestos minerals are now known to be
carcinogenic, people have taken advantage of the fibrous
materials' unique properties for millennia. About 4,500 years
ago, artisans mixed asbestos minerals with clay to produce
stronger pottery. And 2,000 years ago, asbestos fibers were woven
into textiles to make fireproof napkins (that were "washed" by
tossing them into fire), or to make a special fabric that could
separate human ashes from funeral pyre material during
cremations, Kakoulli said. "It was considered to have magical
powers," she told Live Science.

In the late 19th century, people used asbestos in industrial
products -- including cements, wall plasters, joint (drywall)
compounds, fire-retardant coatings and roofing, among other
things  -- to increase their durability, insulation and
weathering protection.

Given this history, Kakoulli and her colleagues weren't expecting
to find asbestos on the walls of Enkleistra of St. Neophytos.
They initially set out to see if there was any change in the
materials used to create the monastery's numerous wall paintings
over time.

"We wanted to see how the technological part of making these
paintings follows or reveals anything of what we see in their
iconography and style," Kakoulli said.

The researchers analyzed some of the paintings on site using
various techniques, including infrared, ultraviolet and X-ray
fluorescence imaging. They also collected micro-samples of the
paintings and further analyzed their molecular and elemental
makeup with powerful scanning electron microscopes and other
methods.

A surprising find

One of the paintings they inspected depicted the "Enthroned
Christ" holding a book with a red frame. When they analyzed the
red frame, they found an asbestos-rich layer that was applied as
a finish coating between a red paint layer and a plaster layer
made up mostly of plant fibers. "So far, we've only found it in
relation to those red pigments," Kakoulli said.

They found an asbestos-rich layer in the painting "Enthroned
Christ," which would've been applied as a finish coating between
a red paint layer and a plaster layer made up mostly of plant
fibers.They found an asbestos-rich layer in the painting
"Enthroned Christ," which would've been applied as a finish
coating between a red paint layer and a plaster layer made up
mostly of plant fibers.

Interestingly, the main deposits of asbestos in Cyprus come from
a high-elevation area approximately 38 miles (60 km) from the
monastery, which is near the coast. This location suggests the
monks may have been involved in a kind of interregional trade for
the asbestos.

The discovery raises many questions, such as why the asbestos was
used in this context (and only for the red frame in the
painting). It's also curious why the fibrous material apparently
wasn't used again in coatings until the 19th century.

The scientists are now searching for answers. They plan to return
to Cyprus to characterize more of the paintings at Enkleistra of
St. Neophytos. Kakoulli also hopes to revisit other wall
paintings she's previously studied in Cyprus, to see if they also
contained asbestos.

"I have a feeling that it's something that can be easily missed,"
Kakoulli said. "This was quite an accidental discovery."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Forces Closure of Toronto Catholic School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Chubb and Amanda Ferguson, writing for CityNews,
reported that a Toronto Catholic high school has been closed
after air ducts tested positive for asbestos.

The testing was done following work on the swimming pool and
change rooms at St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School, located in
the Greenwood and Danforth Avenues area.

"We sampled the tile grout in the change rooms and it was
determined that it contained about 1.5 per cent asbestos,"
Corrado Maltese, co-ordinator of occupational health and safety
with the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) told
CityNews. "Although it's not a lot of asbestos, it is still
considered asbestos-containing and there was some concern that
some of the dust in that construction area may have actually
entered the ventilation of the school."

The Ministry of Labour asked that the entire building be tested
for the presence of asbestos. Four of the buildings' 17 air ducts
came back positive.

Maltese said ducts were cleaned and then as an added precaution
he ordered further air quality tests to make sure none of the
asbestos became airborne.

Fe de Leon, a researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law
Association, says the board is taking the right steps in going
above and beyond to make sure the children are safe.

"I think it's a good start. I think, as it respects to areas
where young people spend a good chunk of their days, it's better
to be cautious than not to," she explained.

"There's always cause for concern. The threshold for asbestos is
set quite low but if you have opportunities to clean it up let's
do that."

Students have been moved to a nearby school while the testing
continues.

Asbestos in schools is nothing new. The TCDSB says 175 of their
201 buildings contain it and that any building built before 1990
likely contains some asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Men Get Prison Time for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Patton, writing for Merced Sunstar, reported that two men
convicted of exposing Merced County, California, high school
students to asbestos will soon be headed to prison.

Patrick Bowman and Rudy Buendia III were sentenced in Fresno
federal court by U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill to 27
and 24 months respectively in federal prison, according to the
office of U.S. District Attorney Benjamin Wagner.

The third person in the case, Joseph Cuellar, filed a motion to
withdraw his no contest plea. The motion was denied. The judge
gave Cuellar's attorney until May 15 to file additional motions
prior to sentencing. A year ago, the trio pleaded no contest to
federal charges of violating federal asbestos laws.

The three men were executives at the now-defunct nonprofit Firm
Build. Federal prosecutors say the men used the high school
students to remove the cancer-causing substance from a renovation
project at Castle Commerce Center's Automotive Training Center
from September 2005 to March 2006.

The Merced County Office of Education had contracted with Firm
Build to provide job training to high school students.
Prosecutors say Bowman, Buendia and Cuellar cut corners on the
project by knowingly using the students to remove asbestos from
the 2245 Jetstream Drive building, under the guise of work
experience and job training programs.

In a statement, Wagner called the actions of the men "reckless."

"The sentences imposed should remind all who may be involved in
handling such materials that disregarding federal environmental
laws can result in prison time. I am grateful for the support of
the investigations bureau of the Merced County District
Attorney's Office, and of Cal-EPA and the California Department
of Justice, in the course of the investigation and prosecution of
this case," Wagner said.

"There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos," Jay M. Green,
special agent-in-charge of the Environmental Protection Agency's
criminal enforcement program in California, said in a statement.
"Directing student workers to illegally remove demolition debris
containing asbestos, knowing they had neither the training nor
the proper personal protective equipment, threatens their health
and safety."

In addition to the federal case, the trio pleaded no contest in
Merced County Superior Court last May to state felony charges of
treating, handling or disposing of asbestos in a manner that
caused an unreasonable risk of serious injury to students, with
reckless disregard for their safety. Under the terms of their
plea deals, the time they spend in federal prison will cover the
convictions in both state and federal court.

Restitution amounts are still being discussed in the case.
Experts for the prosecution have stated medical monitoring costs
for the victims over the next 50 years could be millions of
dollars. An investigator with the EPA in December testified that
about 68 people may have been exposed to asbestos at the Castle
site.

Bowman and Buendia are expected to report to federal officials on
June 27 to begin serving their prison sentences. A decision
hasn't been made about where they will serve their time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk in New Zealand Trains "Minimal"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Will Green, writing for Supply Management, reported that KiwiRail
in New Zealand has said the health risk is "minimal" following
testing of 40 new Chinese-built trains that were found to contain
asbestos.

The organization said seven out of 204 samples showed a "very
small presence of non-respirable asbestos in five operable
locomotives", while the other 34 trains in service contained no
asbestos dust. Traces of asbestos were also found in the
remaining locomotive, which is not currently in service.

Full tests began after routine testing of a paint sample
indicated the presence of asbestos and 40 trains were pulled from
service.

The DL locomotives were built and supplied by China-based Dalian
Locomotive and Rolling Stock Company Ltd, and "white asbestos"
had been found in a soundproofing compound and packing material
in the doors, in breach of the contract specification, said
KiwiRail.

KiwiRail chief executive Peter Reidy said: "With the majority of
the locomotives showing minimal risk for exposure to airborne
fibres, we are confident that appropriate measures can be put in
place that will enable us to progressively bring these
locomotives back into service soon.

"We have repeatedly said no locomotive will operate until we are
completely satisfied it poses no risk to our people."

KiwiRail said an "operational plan" was being drawn up, including
a comprehensive set of risk management measures for safe
operation, ongoing mitigation and eventual removal of all
asbestos containing materials.

Reidy said the reduced rail capacity was causing "supply chain
issues for many New Zealand industries and businesses".

"The DL locomotives are the workhorse of our fleet and without
their pulling power all customers are feeling the lack of
capacity," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards Mesothelioma Victim $7.2MM in Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Philadelphia County jury has awarded a shipfitter's family
$7.25 million in an asbestos trial, dismissing all of defendant's
defenses.

After hearing two weeks of evidence, the family of Edward
Merwitz, who died of mesothelioma at the age of 62, won its
victory on March 13.

By the time the case was passed off to the jury for
deliberations, all but one of nine asbestos manufacturers had
settled, leaving only RSCC Wire & Cable, formerly known as
Rockbestos Surprenant Cable Corporation.

The verdict awards $3.6 million in survival damages and $3.6
million for wrongful death.

Rockbestos offered a $2,500 settlement before the trial, which
was rejected. It will now be responsible for its share of the
award, which amounts to about $805,250 -- $403,772 for the
Survival Act and $401,478 for wrongful death.

Merwitz alleges he was exposed to asbestos while working on U.S.
Navy ships at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1965 until
1970. Part of his job required him to handle asbestos-containing
products including gaskets, packing, pumps, electric motors,
turbines, control boxes and electric wire.

Merwitz also alleges he was exposed to asbestos-containing pipe
covering and insulation through his work.

During trial, the defendant claimed asbestos-containing products
were incorrectly identified as theirs. It also argued that its
electric wire did not contain asbestos, but instead was
manufactured with a safer fiber.

Rockbestos also alleged Merwitz could not have been exposed to
its asbestos-containing products frequently enough to have been a
significant contributing factor to his mesothelioma development.

RSCC designs and manufactures insulated control, power,
instrumentation and specialty electrical cables.

The jury also found Buffalo Pumps, Westinghouse, Blackmer Pumps,
General Electric Company, Greene Tweed & Company, Square D
Company and Warren Pumps LLC liable for substantially
contributing to Merwitz's asbestos-related disease.

Merwitz was later diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2010,
and his family filed the complaint on his behalf in November
2010.

Lawrence R. Cohan of AnapolSchwartz represented Merwitz's family
and Robert Corbin represented Rockbestos. Neither attorney
responded to interview requests.

Judge Victor Dinubile presided over the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calls for Stronger Bylaws Brought to Council
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Saskatoon reported that Jesse Todd, the stepson of a former
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan building inspector who died of an
asbestos-related cancer, is pushing for stronger city bylaws to
protect workers against the potentially dangerous fibres.

Todd wants better reporting of asbestos in buildings scheduled
for demolition. The chair of the Saskatchewan Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization asked city council to introduce a bylaw
requiring contractors to notify building inspectors when they are
to begin work on buildings constructed before 1983.

The bylaw would prevent workers from being exposed to asbestos,
Todd said.

Jesse Todd accepts an award on behalf of his stepfather Howard
Willems in this CTV file photo.

Todd's stepfather, Howard Willems, died in November 2012 from
mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that comes from inhaling
asbestos fibres.  He was a strong advocate for asbestos safety
and shortly after his death the province introduced a registry
for buildings with asbestos.

Todd said the city now needs to introduce similar registry
bylaws.

City councillors sent his request to administration for
discussion at executive meetings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra House Cleared for Deadly Dust
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a
Pearce home owner is seeking legal advice after buying a home
formally cleared by the ACT government of having Mr Fluffy
asbestos, only to find out that was an administrative mistake and
there is potentially deadly loose amosite asbestos in his walls
and floors.

Retired engineer Tim Lyon holds grave concerns for the health of
the family who previously lived in the home and who undertook
extensive renovations during the 1990s. Those concerns extend to
tradespeople who may have been exposed to the type 1 carcinogen
while they replaced the kitchen, bathroom, wiring, extended the
dining room and installed bay windows.

The office of Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, who is acting
Workplace Safety Minister, indicated that no attempt had been
made to contact the previous owners but that the government had
been proactive in providing regular reminders to Canberrans "on
the importance of being aware of the possible dangers of exposure
to asbestos".

Mr Lyon bought his home in 2008, confident it did not harbour any
asbestos.  His Lease Conveyancing report from the ACT Planning
and Land Authority stated: "Records indicate that loose asbestos
was not identified in the ceiling cavities of these premises (but
not including any shed or garage on the property) during the
government program conducted in the early 1990s."

He was therefore surprised to find a reminder in his letterbox in
late February that his home had contained Mr Fluffy roof
insulation and, even though it had been removed in the $100
million Commonwealth clean-up program, he should have it checked
regularly by a licensed assessor.  He rang Canberra Connect to
check why the letter had arrived at his address.

Soon after, a call from the Office of Industrial Relations in the
Chief Minister's and Treasury Directorate informed him there had
been a mistake in the conveyancing report and his property was,
indeed, a Mr Fluffy home.

When Mr Lyon asked for the paperwork and asbestos report on the
property, he was told to apply to pay for the documents through
ACTPLA or to submit a freedom-of-information request.

He was also given a number for ACT Health to seek medical advice
on potential asbestos exposure. The spokesman for the acting
minister said: "The home owner in question has been advised of
the ability to obtain the building file for his home, and that
this can be obtained from him on providing evidence that he is
the home owner.

"The asbestos removal file requires an FOI request, as it
predates him owning the house and has information on the file
relating to previous owners."

Mr Lyon said he experienced a range of emotions after the
confirmation of asbestos in his home, including immediate concern
he had been exposed while carrying out minor work underneath his
house.  He was also incensed that the Chief Minister's and
Treasury Directorate did not offer to forward him the paperwork
relating to his home, despite having his file there at the time
of the phone conversation.

"Surely, if this is their mistake, they should be helping me to
get as much information as I could about my house," he said.
He was told that he had received an asbestos removal certificate
with his house contract, but when he looked up the documents,
there was only a blank page.

"I honestly don't know what to make of it. All I know is the
information I relied on was the statement that the house did not
contain asbestos.

"Would I have bought the house had I known its history? I can't
say, but I would at least have liked to be fully informed before
I had made my decision."

Mr Lyon has since had a licensed asbestos assessment, which
confirmed remnant asbestos in his wall cavities and subfloor --
the second recent confirmation in Pearce that the Mr Fluffy loose
amosite asbestos has escaped beyond the roof cavity despite the
forensic cleaning program of the 1990s.

Mr Lyon faces a substantial bill in remediation work, including
sealing parts of the walls and floors.  He was, however, relieved
that air monitoring showed no asbestos was inside his home.  Mr
Lyon said he was seeking legal advice regarding the ACT
government's handling of his case and was also considering
demolishing the house.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleaning Continues at Madison Library
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Pignataro, writing for Madison Patch, reported that the
Madison Library remains closed due to ongoing asbestos cleanup.

The cleanup was expected to be completed for the library to re-
open.  However, the library is expected to remain closed for
"much of this week," according to a message on its website. The
re-opening date will be posted on the library's website.

The library was built in 1969 with asbestos-containing materials
that were identified in 2010. The library closed in March 2011
and again in November 2012 for asbestos abatement projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Even Small Amounts of Fibro Can Cause Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
When asbestos fibers are breathed in, they may get trapped in the
lungs where they may remain for a long period of time. A recent
study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (JOEM) in January 2014, reported that even small amounts
of asbestos can remain in the body and cause a number of serious
health conditions. The most serious is mesothelioma, which is a
cancer of the thin membranes that line the abdomen and chest.

This study was one of the largest in history that focused on
asbestos exposure and included 58,279 subjects aged 55 to 69
years. The subjects--all male, were monitored for 17.3 years. At
the end of the follow-up period, more than 2,600 pleural
mesothelioma, lung cancer, and laryngeal cancer cases were
recorded. The breakdown is as follows:

   * 132 Pleural Mesothelioma Case
   * 166 Laryngeal Cases
   * 2,324 Lung Cancer Cases

The researchers concluded that asbestos levels encountered even
at the lower end of the exposure distribution may be associated
with an increased risk of pleural mesothelioma, lung cancer, and
laryngeal cancer.

"This groundbreaking study proves what we see with our clients on
a daily basis, that exposure in even the smallest amounts can
have major health implications years later," said Neil Maune,
partner of MRHFM. "We work with clients that range from those
directly exposed to asbestos on job sites to secondary exposure
incidents where a person never even thought they were at any
risk."

Classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), asbestos (exposure) can also lead to lung cancer,
asbestosis, and pleural effusion. The study also suggests that
exposure to asbestos may lead to gastrointestinal and colorectal
cancers, and it may increase the risk of cancers of the throat,
kidney, esophagus, and gallbladder.

The EPA has always maintained that any level of asbestos exposure
is dangerous and around 55 counties have banned all forms of
asbestos. Although the agency continues its fight for a total ban
on asbestos in the U.S., the mineral is still legal and it can be
found in more than 3,000 products on the U.S. Market.

For more information about asbestos-related disease, request a
free copy of 100 Questions & Answers About Mesothelioma at
http://www.mesotheliomabook.com.Or for a free consultation with
an experienced mesothelioma attorney, contact the legal team at
MRHFM today. MRHFM is the largest firm exclusively devoted to
helping mesothelioma victims and their families.

          About Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC

Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC is a mesothelioma law
firm based in St. Louis, MO. With offices across the country,
their size and exclusive focus on mesothelioma cases allows them
to represent clients through the process as quickly as possible
and maximize their clients' recovery. The attorneys at MRHFM have
represented thousands of victims exposed to asbestos. The firm
has 29 attorneys across the country, 16 investigators, 7 client
service managers, and additional support staff including
paralegals and legal assistants. For more information about Maune
Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC, visit
http://www.mesotheliomabook.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Site of New Bus Depot
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Brown, writing for Joondalup Weekender, reported that a bus
depot has been approved for development at the Beenyup Wastewater
Treatment Plant site near Ocean Reef Road in Craigie, despite the
concerns of nearby residents and the City of Joondalup, in
Australia.

The Public Transport Authority applied last November to establish
the $3.4 million depot, including 60 bus bays, an office, four-
bay workshop and wash and fuel facilities, opposite the City of
Joondalup's works operation centre and about 80m from the closest
residential properties.

The City of Joondalup consulted with nearby residents, receiving
a number of objections and a 43-signature petition opposing the
development.

However, because the 1.7ha area of land was reserved under the
Metropolitan Region Scheme, the decision was up to the WA
Planning Commission and the City could only provide a
recommendation.

Joondalup Mayor Troy Pickard said it was recommended that the
Commission refuse the application.

"The City made its recommendation for refusal on the grounds the
facility could potentially have a negative effect on the amenity
of the local area and residents," he said.

"The depot is expected to generate up to 190 bus movements and
150 car movements per day."

Craigie resident Susie Robertson said there were concerns about
the noise that would come from the increased traffic and the
visual amenity for residents who would be able to see the depot
from their backyards.

"It's too close for comfort," she said.

PTA spokeswoman Claire Krol said preserving the amenity had been
an important consideration.

"We have carried out comprehensive noise modelling that shows our
plan to build a 3m wall along the western side and half way along
the northern side of the site will ensure noise impacts on
surrounding residents remain well below Department of
Environmental regulation standards," she said.

Ms Robertson also raised concerns regarding diesel fuel fumes,
the effect it could have on nearby residents' health and a letter
she received last week from the transport authority stating that
the land would be "remediated for asbestos contamination".

"The remediation of the asbestos will involve scraping off the
asbestos-impacted soil and burying this soil deep within the site
and covering it over with clean soil," the letter stated.

"We have been quite shocked to find that there is asbestos
contamination behind our fence lines," Ms Robertson said.

Ms Krol said the remediation would be carried out in accordance
with Department of Health best practice guidelines and included
monitoring by an independent environmental consultant.

She also said Transperth buses complied with Australian emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

"Public transport provides significant environmental advantages
to the community and contributes to a better quality of life by
reducing the number of cars in the street, helping improve air
quality, alleviating traffic congestion and traffic noise levels
and provides many other mobility, safety and economic benefits to
people and businesses," she said.

The new depot is expected to be completed within 12 months.

It will supplement the Karrinyup bus depot and run services west
of Craigie.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Clean-up Continues
-----------------------------------------
Lyle Manion, writing for The Daily Reveille, reported that
asbestos-infested mud and water in the steam tunnels under campus
in Louisiana pushed Facility Services' clean-up project past the
expected length of three weeks.

The project, which began in January, aimed to replace insulation
infested with asbestos particles to make tunnels more accessible
for repairs, said Dave Maharrey, associate executive director of
Facility Services. During this process, it was discovered that
asbestos particles drifted downward, contaminating the muddy
water below. Because of this, Facility Services decided to do a
full cleaning of the steam tunnels, beyond replacing insulation.

Maharrey said the original portion of the project, removal and
replacement of insulation, is complete. The full cleaning is
still underway.

"This is the second job. We've done the first," Maharrey said.
The tunnel system has multiple sections that will be tended to
systematically, Maharrey said. Tunnels below the Quad's east end
are currently being worked on. Maintenance under the Quad's west
end will follow.

The intention of the project has not changed, Maharrey said.
Ultimately, the cleaning of the tunnels will result in easier,
more efficient repairs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Hotline for Queenslanders
----------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associate Press reported that Queenslanders will
able to find out about asbestos in their homes before it's too
late with a new hotline.

The state government has launched the hotline and a website to
help people find out if there's asbestos in the homes and what
they should do about it before they start renovating.

"Once you've already started the process and the asbestos is in
the air, then unfortunately it can be too late," Attorney-General
Jarrod Bleijie told reporters.

Exposure to asbestos particles can lead to asbestosis, a chronic
inflammatory lung disease that restricts breathing and can cause
cancer.

The new plan also subjects asbestos removalists to a new
licensing regime and lists them on the new website.

The plan cuts overlapping asbestos inspection responsibilities,
with councils now in charge of residential properties and the
government in charge of commercial premises.

Inspectors will also be given more substantial training to
identify asbestos and advise people on how to deal with it.

Materials containing asbestos exist in most buildings constructed
before 1990 and is not considered dangerous unless damaged or
disturbed.

Queensland's government spent $989,000 removing asbestos from 26
schools in the 2012/13 financial year.

But there is still 10,000 square metres of asbestos in government
buildings, the bulk of which is too expensive to remove for the
time being.

Asbestos-related diseases can take more than 20 years before
victims develop symptoms.

The government also plans to launch an education program to teach
people about the dangers of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanford Contractors Fined Over Fibro Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reported that two
Hanford, Oregon contractors will pay more than $175,000 in fines
after an Environmental Protection Agency investigation found
alleged violations of federal asbestos handling regulations.

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. will pay $131,594 and
Washington Closure Hanford will pay $44,000 in settlement
agreements reached with EPA, the federal agency reported.

The alleged violations were discovered during an August 2012
inspection. EPA said buildings were torn down with asbestos still
in siding or paint, that information provided to the Benton Clean
Air Authority was inaccurate and that some asbestos waste was
improperly stored.

"Asbestos was poorly managed here from start to finish," said Ed
Kowalski, director of EPA's enforcement office in Seattle. "EPA
requires all building owners and contractors to remove asbestos
before starting any regulated demolition activity which can crush
or pulverize asbestos and release dust."

The penalties were related to clean air regulations. The same
August 2012 inspection also resulted in previously announced
fines of $115,000 related to environmental cleanup regulations.

If inhaled, asbestos fibers can lodge in a person's lungs and
lead to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining
of the lung, chest and abdomen. It also can cause asbestosis, a
serious long-term lung disease.

CH2M Hill used heavy equipment to tear down seven industrial
buildings in the 200 West Area of central Hanford, according to
the signed agreement. The building exteriors had panels of
transite, or cement asbestos board, that were not removed before
demolition began, even though there was a high probability they
would be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder.

CH2M Hill notified the Benton Clean Air Authority that the waste
containing asbestos from the seven buildings would be taken to
Basin Disposal in Pasco, but Basin Disposal was hired to haul the
waste. The waste was disposed of at an Oregon landfill that
accepts waste that contains asbestos, said John Pavitt, an EPA
asbestos compliance inspector.

CH2M Hill also told the Benton Clean Air Authority that waste
from abandoned central Hanford steam lines, which had insulation
that contained asbestos, was being trucked by CH2M Hill. However,
it had hired MP Environmental Services to truck the waste to a
landfill, according to the agreement.

EPA tracks asbestos waste through notifications to the Benton
Clean Air Authority and the errors were more than a paperwork
issue, Pavitt said.

"We rely on it being accurate so we know where to go for our
inspections," he said.

Inspectors want to be able to watch when waste comes out of the
trucks to make sure it is appropriately packaged and sprayed with
water to keep down dust.

CH2M Hill also is accused of improper storage of waste from the
steam lines.

Pavitt found one bag of the waste in a waste storage trailer that
had many small tears, and the material was not being kept wet as
required, he said. Further inspection by CH2M Hill found another
bag in a similar condition, he said.

"We recognize the basis for this action regarding our asbestos
controls and we take it very seriously," CH2M Hill said in a
statement.

During the past two years it has made improvements to asbestos
procedures, including training workers and forming a working
group to resolve asbestos issues. A national expert in asbestos
regulation also was hired to provide training to Hanford
leadership and advise CH2M Hill during work planning and
execution.

Washington Closure was accused of demolishing a water tower that
still had some asbestos paint.

No worker was exposed to contamination or was at risk during the
demolition of the water tower or the disposal of waste from it,
Washington Closure said in a statement.

"While (Washington Closure Hanford) may disagree with the legal
conclusion reached in this case, what we do agree on is the
importance of ensuring worker safety," it said.

The Department of Energy began taking steps to improve worker
safety on demolition work involving asbestos at Hanford two years
ago when it learned of EPA concerns, DOE said in a statement. DOE
also was a party to the settlement agreements, but fines will be
paid by its contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Funding Available for Bradford People
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telegraph & Argus reported that victims of the fatal asbestos-
induced cancer mesothelioma who are unable to trace a liable
employer or an employers' liability insurer can from this month
apply for compensation packages worth an average of GBP123,000.

The U.K. Government has increased payments from the initial
GBP115,000 figure debated in the House of Commons in January
after making savings in administration costs of the scheme.

About 3,500 mesothelioma victims or their families can apply for
compensation and will receive a payment from July as part of a
GBP380 million package.

Mesothelioma, which often takes 40-50 years to present symptoms
after exposure to asbestos, has resulted in more than 300 people
every year struggling to find a relevant party to sue for damages
because companies become insolvent or insurance records go
missing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Chatham Schools to Receive Fibro Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Menderski, writing for The State Journal-Register,
reported that four schools in the Ball-Chatham School District,
in Illinois, will undergo asbestos abatement this summer.

The abatement project will target Ball Elementary School, Chatham
Elementary School, Glenwood Intermediate School and Glenwood
Middle School.

David Murphy, director of facilities and grounds for the Ball-
Chatham School District, estimated the abatement would cost
$950,000. Murphy said all of the buildings were built during the
1970s or earlier, and the asbestos must be removed as part of
upcoming bathroom and roof renovations.

"Anything built prior to 1980 has the potential to have asbestos
as part of the construction," Murphy said. "To renovate the
building, it means we have to take the asbestos out, and that's
quite a project."

The district will continue to accept bids for the abatement until
April 10. Murphy aims to begin the project June 1 and have it
completed by the first week of August.

The abatement will affect bathrooms at all four schools as well
as a roofing project at GIS. Murphy estimated the roofing
abatement will cost $644,000. The four bathrooms will total about
$303,000.

Asbestos, a heat-resistant fiber often used in building
installation, can be found in building materials such as roofing
shingles, ceilings and floor tiles. Disturbing asbestos-
containing material during demolition work increases risk for
exposure. The fiber has been linked to lung cancer, mesothelioma
and asbestosis, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

Murphy said abatements such as these are very common in school
renovations. The district will close the areas undergoing the
work to everyone except for the contractors.

"There should be no cause for concern," Murphy said. "This is
something that's done in schools all the time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attys. Clear Up "Every Exposure" Confusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the "every exposure" theory used often in asbestos
litigation was rejected in Pennsylvania in 2012 and has been the
subject of several appeals within the last year. Now, two defense
attorneys concerned with the application of opinions rejecting
the theory have shed some light on the complicated matter.

Nicholas P. Vari and Michael J. Ross, partners with the K&L Gates
law firm in Pittsburgh, addressed the "every exposure" theory and
its use in asbestos litigation in their article "State Courts
Move to Dismiss 'Every Exposure' Liability Theory in Asbestos
Lawsuits," which was published by the Washington Legal Foundation
on Feb. 28.

Vari and Ross explain that the "every exposure" theory allowed
plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits to allege that even defendants
who may have contributed to a claimant's asbestos-related disease
by only a "single fiber" can still be held liable.

The theory is based on the idea that a claimant's exposure is
"indivisible, meaning every fiber the plaintiff was exposed could
have contributed to the injury."

In other words, the theory provided a way for plaintiffs in
asbestos lawsuits to allege liability upon de minimis exposure
defendants, whose products alone would have been insufficient
enough to cause the injury.

The theory, therefore, makes "each defendant potentially liable
for every exposure that a plaintiff encountered during his
lifetime, regardless of how minimal a specific defendant's
product was in relation to the lifetime of exposure," Vari and
Ross wrote.

"Courts seem to have given a lot of leeway to asbestos plaintiffs
in terms of proving disease causation," Vari said.

Vari explained that the issue has become more relevant recently
because, in the past, asbestos lawsuits included more intense
exposures. Since so many companies have declared bankruptcy and
turned to litigating through trusts, solvent defendants left in
litigation are responsible for de minimus exposures, he said.

"The levels of exposure for those left in the tort system are
much, much smaller than those in the tort system 20 or 30 years
ago," Vari said.

The article also claims that the "every exposure" theory ignored
the fundamental relationship between dose and disease.

"As a practical matter, the 'every exposure' theory obviated the
causation element of an asbestos plaintiff's claim, ignoring the
well-established scientific link between dose and disease," Vari
and Ross wrote.

"It's just reality that causation is something that relates to
the level of the dose," Vari added.

Vari further explained that defense attorneys are working on
spreading the rejection of the "every exposure" theory to other
states beyond Pennsylvania and Maryland with some difficulty as
many trial courts haven't been perceptive of their arguments.

"It's viewed to be a harsh doctrine," Vari said.

The landmark case Vari and Ross refer to when discussing the
"every exposure" theory is the Betz decision from 2012, in which
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the theory as a means of
establishing causation in asbestos cases.

According to the Betz decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
held in 2012 that an expert testifying that "every exposure" to
asbestos is a substantial contributing factor to asbestos-related
diseases contradicts testimony that such diseases are dose-
responsive.

"Simply put, one cannot simultaneously maintain that a single
fiber among millions is substantially causative, while also
conceding that a disease is dose-responsive," the court ruled.

In an effort to define the Betz decision when applied to similar
cases, the conclusion has catapulted four other opinions
regarding the "every exposure" issue since July in appellate
courts in Pennsylvania and Maryland, including the Dixon
decision, Campbell decision, Nelson decision and Howard decision.

Vari and Ross wrote in their article that while the opinions from
each case reach varying conclusions, the courts unanimously
accepted the decision in Betz that the "'every exposure' theory
has no place in modern toxic tort litigation" and therefore fails
to establish causation in asbestos litigation.

"Indeed, even the courts that held in favor of the proponents of
the 'every exposure' theory held that the theory cannot sustain a
liability finding, and that instead, courts must assess
individually the exposures alleged against each defendant," Vari
and Ross wrote. "Accordingly, these courts have ruled that the
alleged exposures attributed to each defendant must stand on
their own."

Therefore, to impose liability in an asbestos lawsuit, plaintiffs
must provide specific causation evidence with respect to each
defendant individually, they stated.

"While such a standard appears intuitive, it is a marked
departure from earlier rulings upholding the 'every exposure'
theory in past asbestos cases," Vari and Ross wrote. "Those
rulings had the effect of rendering each defendant liable for all
of the asbestos-containing materials to which a plaintiff might
have been exposed over the course of his lifetime, without regard
to whether the particular defendant's product actually harmed the
injured plaintiff."

Vari says that since the additional opinions stemming from Betz
have been published, the Dixon opinion has been wrongfully
interpreted to validate the "every exposure" theory.

In response to confusion, the pair wrote the article to "provide
a survey of the law and lay out why that wasn't the case," Vari
said.

According to the Dixon decision, Maryland's highest court
reversed a Maryland Court of Special Appeals conclusion,
reinstated an original verdict in favor of the claimant and
against defendant Ford Motor Company in 2013, which could be
where confusion sets in because a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs was awarded.

The higher court did not find the "every exposure" theory to be
valid. Rather, it reinstated the plaintiff verdict because the
claimant's evidence against Ford was sufficient enough to sustain
the jury's causation findings.

"Dixon accepts facts and doesn't advocate for the application of
the single fiber theory," Vari said. "Rather it was a decision
based on the evidence of that case."

In other words, although the "every exposure" theory was not a
valid scientific theory according to Maryland law, there was
still sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of
causation against Ford, the court ruled.

"It was more the court saying that there was evidence beyond the
single fiber opinion that the jury could have accepted," Vari
added. "The expert may have talked about single fiber, but that's
not what he relied upon for causation in his opinion."

Vari and Ross continued to explain the facts about the remaining
three opinions stemming from Betz in their article.

In the Campbell decision from 2013, defendant A.W. Chesterton
Inc. challenged the admissibility and legal sufficiency of the
"every exposure" theory presented by a plaintiff expert medical
witness.

The plaintiff, who worked as a welder for 20 years and then a
custodian for 10 years with the Budd Company in Philadelphia,
alleged he used A.W. Chesterton's asbestos-containing products on
a regular basis while employed with Budd Company.

During trial, a plaintiff medical expert testified that any
asbestos fiber the claimant inhaled contributed to his
development of lung cancer.

However, during his testimony, the expert also mentioned other
potential causes of the plaintiff's lung cancer, including his
heavy tobacco use, exposure to metal fumes while making jewelry
as a hobby and other asbestos exposures in the workplace.

Therefore, the appeals court concluded that the expert's
testimony was not focused on a broad "every exposure" theory of
causation.

"So the court determined the trial court did not err in refusing
to grant a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict
based on the expert's every exposure theory because he had a
number of defendant-specific factors," Vari and Ross wrote.

In the Nelson decision from 2013, the plaintiffs claim decedent
James Nelson, who died from mesothelioma, was exposed to asbestos
from three welding products manufacturers -- Lincoln Electric
Co., Crane Co. and Hobart Brothers Co.

As part of the plaintiff's argument, an expert witness testified
that every exposure was a substantial contributor to Nelson's
disease and that there "are no innocent exposures." However, the
expert failed to share specific information pertaining to the
trial defendant's specific asbestos-containing materials, thus
failing to make a specific causation case.

Therefore, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the expert's
opinions "could not be distinguished from the legally and
scientifically invalid 'every exposure' theory offered by the
expert medical witness in Betz."

The published Nelson opinion was later vacated and is now pending
before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Howard decision had a surprising outcome in the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.

After trial, the plaintiffs, who won the jury verdict in the
Superior Court, agreed with the defendants that the ruling in the
claimant's favor should be reversed according to Betz and,
therefore, agreed to a reversal.

In an opinion reaffirming "'several governing principles' in the
area of causation in toxic tort matters," the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court confirmed that "the theory that each and every
exposure, no matter how small, is substantially causative of
disease may not be relied upon as a basis to establish
substantial-factor causation for diseases that are dose-
responsive."

The court further opined that cases involving "dose-responsive
diseases," such as asbestos-related diseases, may not permit
expert testimonies that ignore or fail to consider dose as a
factor in their opinions.

"'[S]ome reasoned, individualized assessment of a plaintiff's or
decedent's exposure history is necessary' before an expert
witness can offer substantial-factor causation testimony, bare
proof of some de minimis exposure to a defendant's product is
insufficient to establish substantial-factor causation, and
summary judgment is available to address cases involving de
minimis exposures and causation opinions based on the 'any
exposure' theory," Vari and Ross wrote.

Ultimately, each case began with the idea presented by plaintiff
expert witnesses that every exposure to asbestos caused the
claimant's disease and is sufficient to prove causation.

However, the courts ruled in all four cases that specific
evidence brought against specific defendants was required for a
jury to find causation.

In Dixon and Campbell, the court upheld the jury verdict,
deciding that the plaintiffs presented enough evidence of
exposures to the specific trial defendants' products.

The two decisions also suggest "that the admission of the invalid
every exposure theory can be harmless error if the expert medical
witness offering it also provides legally admissible testimony
linking a specific defendant's products with a specific
plaintiff's disease."

In Nelson, the plaintiff expert witness failed to offer specific
evidence and instead relied on the idea that each of Nelson's
exposures, regardless of its nature, caused his disease.

As for Howard, "any standard that is true to Betz and Howard
cannot require anything less than a defendant-specific causation
finding with respect to each defendant," Vari and Ross wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Compliance Monitor Pleads Guilty
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reported that compliance monitor at an East
Side, New York asbestos removal project pleaded guilty before
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara to covering up some of the
botched demolition work.

Brian Scott, a former employee of JMD Environmental Inc. of Grand
Island, admitted falsifying inspection reports at the former
Kensington Heights public housing development on Fillmore Avenue.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron J. Mango said Scott is the third
defendant -- there were nine individuals and two companies
charged in a 2011 indictment -- to take a misdemeanor plea in the
case.

Scott faces a possible sentence of between six and 12 months in
prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,678 New Cases Filed in 2013
----------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that Madison County broke yet another record in 2013 and
maintained its standing as the epicenter of asbestos litigation,
which has some questioning what future the crowded asbestos
courtroom has.

The Circuit Court reports that 1,678 new asbestos cases were
filed in 2013, eclipsing previous records and throwing Madison
County back into the spotlight as the busiest asbestos docket in
the country.

After embarking on a long, critical journey, the Madison County
asbestos docket doesn't appear to be going anywhere as it
continues to set records.

"Current practices provide substantial benefits to the plaintiffs
bar as well as the defendants bar, so there's little reason to
expect change, but that would depend on how the new judge would
assess the situation," said Lester Brickman, law professor of the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New
York.

Brickman was referring to Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs'
appointment as the new Madison County asbestos judge in October.

"It's interesting," American Tort Reform Association
Communications Director Darren McKinney added. "I don't see
anything on the horizon now."

Attorney Kent Plotner of the Heyl Royster law firm agreed, saying
the docket will likely continue on the rates it is seeing now.

"It doesn't appear that there is going to be a change in the
number of cases that are going to be filed," he said.

Plaintiff attorney Patrick Haines of Napoli, Bern, Ripka &
Shkolnik disagreed, saying the docket has already changed over
time and will continue to do so.

"Asbestos litigation continues to evolve, it's never constant,"
Haines said. "I've been doing it for 20 years and it's very
different from when it started."

"It's definitely going to evolve, that's just fine," he added.
"It's not static."

Regardless, McKinney said it's just speculation at this point.

"Nobody's got a perfect crystal ball," he said.

As Madison County's asbestos docket continues to break records,
the question is whether or not it can sustain its growth,
specifically if more trials arise out of the situation.

Since 2005, Madison County has averaged about one in trial per
year. The county could handle more trials than it's seen in
recent years, but not too many more, attorney Brian Huelsmann of
HeplerBroom confirmed.

In order for both parties to prepare, there is a limit on the
number of cases that can be reasonably set for trial.

"You reach a point where you can't conceivably get them ready
beyond a certain point," Plotner said.

On the other hand, it's not entirely Madison County's fault for
the quickly growing docket. According to Illinois law, courts are
required to accommodate terminal claimants over 70 years old,
Raymond Fournie of the Armstrong Teasdale law firm explained.

"Courts accommodate the laws' requirements as much as possible,
but there are physical limitations on what can be done," Fournie
said.

"At some point, if the volume gets too big, the system can no
longer absorb and will start to crumble under its own weight."

Looking forward, McKinney expressed concern over the increasing
number of lung cancer cases across the country, including Madison
County.  He says the country has reached its epidemiological peak
with respect to new diagnosis of mesothelioma cases, allowing the
focus to fall on lung cancer cases.

"It seems to me, that the asbestos bar will be increasingly
driven to find other ways to milk this cow, as it were," McKinney
said.

The already growing asbestos docket in Madison County will only
continue to increase with an influx of those lung cancer cases,
Plotner added.

Specifically, McKinney explained that a majority of those lung
cancer cases can't all be attributed to asbestos exposure.

"The plaintiffs with lung cancer making claims against asbestos
defendants, virtually all of them were habitual cigarette smokers
at some point in their lives," McKinney said.

However, Haines clarifies that plaintiffs' attorneys recognize
that numerous claimants diagnosed with lung cancer smoked
cigarettes at one point, but they only have to legally show that
asbestos was a contributing factor to the lung cancer.

"The lung cancer cases are not in any way frivolous cases,"
Haines said. "It's cancer that just happened to grow on the
inside of the person's lung as opposed to the outside of the
person's lung."

Hope for Change

One hope for the type of change ATRA would like to see could come
from Stobbs, who inherited what the group felt was a notoriously
plaintiff-friendly asbestos docket when he was appointed to
preside over it in October.

Stobbs has implemented a priority system, requiring plaintiffs'
attorneys to select their top five cases most likely to go to
trial each week. This allows defendants to focus on five possible
trial cases rather than 20 or more.

Haines said he thought this was always the way in Madison County,
but still commended the method as a "good way to handle" the
system, adding that it "helps move the system along."

"It always helps to give a priority system so resources can be
allocated accordingly by the defendants," Fournie agreed.

Plotner added that the priority system helps hearing days flow
more smoothly.

"Prioritizing the top five allows some sense of a state of
preparedness the cases need to be in for trial purposes," Plotner
said.

Fournie said he would like to see the priority system implemented
earlier in litigation, allowing defendants to allocate their
efforts sooner.

"I would hope that, as we continue going further along in the
litigation, that the priority listings that the judge is
requiring would be pushed a little farther away from trial," he
said.

Defense attorneys who want to see reform shouldn't look toward
the Illinois Legislature.

Plotner agreed legislation would address concerns and help
provide guidance when handling such a large asbestos docket.

Other states have begun to turn to reform in asbestos litigation
through legislation, the most recent one being Wisconsin's recent
approval of asbestos trust fund transparency, making it the third
state to enact such legislation. It joined Ohio and Oklahoma.

Andrew Cook of the Hamilton Consulting Group released a report
called "2013 Civil Justice Update: Recently Enacted State Reforms
and Judicial Challenges," addressing transparency laws and
several other legislations released in an effort to clean up
America's courtrooms.

Some include caps on noneconomic damages, priority laws for cases
that need to be handled more quickly and protection for innocent
companies that purchase companies that once manufactured
asbestos-containing products.

However, Cook explained that such legislation generally only get
passed in Republican-controlled legislatures.

"There are some legislatures out there who have started talking
about that," Huelsmann said. "You see that but it doesn't seem to
be going anywhere in the state of Illinois."

"They've all had legislative reform and it's really curved the
asbestos filings," Huelsmann added.

Fournie said that while passing legislation could help provide
guidance and establish structure, it can also create a more
cumbersome situation.

He clarified by saying legislators will have to take all
ramifications into account when writing up those laws and asked
what to do with those that can't be foreseen.

"Legislative solutions are very difficult to crack when you get
down to what you have to do in order to be successful with them,"
Fournie said.

"Legislation is always tricky in the legal arena, simply because
there is always a right to redress grievances in a court. Some
have established a certain threshold for them to be filed and
maintained in the jurisdiction."

Fournie compared his argument to Forest Gump's "Life is like a
box of chocolates" phrase.

"You don't know which one you get until you open the box,"
Fournie said. "It's like that in law. Make sure whatever you
crack is going to be constitutional and fair."

However, McKinney didn't seem convinced that the Illinois
Legislature was capable of such reform.

"It's not likely any time soon," McKinney said. "I don't see with
the current political make-up in Springfield, I don't see such
legislation happening."

"I don't think the Illinois Legislature, which is controlled by
the Democrats and the unions, is going to pass any legislation
that is against the interest of the plaintiffs bar, given the
current make-up of the legislature," Brickman agreed.

Huelsmann said the future of the Madison County asbestos docket
will rely heavily on how it handles forum non conveniens
hearings.

Because Stobbs has only been presiding over asbestos cases since
October, Huelsmann said he has not yet had to rule on many of
these motions yet.

Plotner agreed such hearings could limit the number or types of
cases filed in Madison County that "arguably have no
connections."

Ultimately, McKinney said he didn't anticipate any changes in the
future, but expressed hope that reform could improve the county's
reputation. His group has called Madison County a "Judicial
Hellhole" in its annual report.

"You never want to give up hope entirely," McKinney said. "Hope
for the best. Hope people will get around to doing the right
thing."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust a Factor in Father's Death
------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a Bishop's Waltham, England man
died from industrial disease, an inquest heard.

Keith Chester, of St Bonnet Drive, was 79 years old when he died
at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital on February 2.

Mr Chester joined the Royal Navy in 1950 and served for 12 years.
In an email to the assistant coroner, Ms Sarah Whitby, his son
Ian Chester said that this was where he came into contact with
asbestos. The inquest, held in Winchester, also heard that Mr
Chester may have been in contact with asbestos during his time as
an engineer with Vosper Thorneycroft.

A post-mortem report showed that he died from a combination of
mesothelioma and bronchopneumonia, likely the result of exposure
to asbestos. Ms Whitby recorded a verdict of death to industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Lead and Asbestos, Co. Fined
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Smith, writing for EHS Today, reported that Olivet
Management LLC, a real estate development and management company
that owns the former Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center in the
Wingdale section of Dover Plains, N.Y., faces a total of
$2,359,000 in proposed fines from OSHA, which cited the company
for exposing its own employees, as well as employees for 13
contractors, to asbestos and lead hazards during cleanup
operations in preparation for a tour of the site by potential
investors.

"Olivet knew that asbestos and lead were present at this site,
yet the company chose to ignore its responsibility to protect its
own workers and contractors," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas
E. Perez. "The intolerable choice this company made put not only
workers, but also their families, in danger."

A statement from Olivet Management said the company "has been
working together and cooperating with OSHA and other agencies to
ensure that our employees work in a safe and healthful
workplace."

An inspection by OSHA's Albany Area Office was launched Oct. 23,
2013 in response to a complaint. The inspection found that Olivet
employees and contractors allegedly were exposed to asbestos and
lead while performing renovation and cleanup activities. The
work, which was directed and overseen by Olivet supervisors,
included removing: asbestos- and lead-contaminated debris;
asbestos-containing floor tiles and insulation; and lead-
containing paint from walls, windows, door frames and other
painted surfaces.

OSHA determined that Olivet "knowingly" failed to take basic
safety precautions. The company neither informed their own
employees nor the contractors about the presence of asbestos and
lead, despite knowing that both hazards existed. As a result,
Olivet did not:

   * Train employees in the hazards of asbestos and lead and the
     need and nature of required safeguards;

   * Monitor workers' exposure levels;

   * Provide appropriate respiratory protection; post notices,
     warning signs and labels to alert workers and contractors
     to the presence of asbestos and lead; or

   * Provide clean changing and decontamination areas for
     workers, many of whom wore their contaminated clothing
     home to households with small children.

As a result of these conditions, Olivet was cited for 45 alleged
willful violations, with $2,352,000 in proposed fines. Twenty-
four of the willful citations address instance-by-instance
exposure of workers to asbestos and lead hazards. A willful
violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary
disregard for the law's requirement, or plain indifference to
employee safety and health.

Olivet was also issued one serious citation, with a $7,000 fine,
for failing to inform waste haulers of the presence of asbestos
and asbestos-containing materials, meaning asbestos from the site
may have been disposed of improperly at an unknown location. A
serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability
that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard
about which the employer knew or should have known.

Olivet Speaks Out

Olivet Management said it is reviewing the notice and will
address the citations in a timely manner.

"We have the same goals as OSHA, to insure that once construction
and renovation work is commenced, all workers will be fully
protected against any unsafe and unhealthful working conditions,"
said the statement from the company. "Furthermore, being new to
New York State, we are grateful for the direction we have been
given by both state and federal agencies in helping us move
forward with our long term commitment to bring economic
development, stability and vibrancy and new jobs to the area in
the most effective and efficient manner as possible."

Olivet said it will be taking a close look at the extensive
citations and penalties that OSHA issued "in the hope of working
with the agency to resolve them."

Due to the willful violations found at the site, Olivet has been
placed in OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which
mandates targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with
the law. Under the program, OSHA may inspect any of the
employer's facilities or job sites.

Renovation and cleanup activities can generate airborne
concentrations of asbestos and lead. Workers can be exposed to
both through inhalation or ingestion. Exposure to asbestos can
cause disabling or fatal diseases, such as asbestosis, lung
cancer, mesothelioma and gastrointestinal cancer. While lead
exposure can cause damage to the nervous system, kidneys, blood
forming organs, and reproductive system.

In January, EPA ordered Olivet to stop all work that could
disturb asbestos at the facility. EPA's investigation is ongoing.

The company said it will work "with all affected parties to
revitalize these many acres of property which have been unused
and remain in their original condition when the state of New York
closed all state hospitals facilities 20 years ago."

Olivet Management said it plans to continue moving forward on the
project and is "committed to for the long term."

Olivet has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and
proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA's
area director or contest the findings before the independent
Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Fears Over Fleetwood Fibro Site
-------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Weekly News reported that children are putting
themselves at risk by playing on an eyesore site in Fleetwood,
England, where asbestos has been identified.

Councillors Ian and Ruth Duffy have raised concerns about the
former Turners Cash and Carry site on Radcliffe Road.

The wholsesale business left the site several years ago and the
building was demolished, with the site then cordoned off with
fencing.

However, over the last couple of years some of the barriers have
fallen away and local children have been seen playing on the
rubbish-strewn land.

The Duffys have been in touch with Wyre Council's environment
health department about the issue, and Wyre confirmed the
presence of asbestos.

Wyre Council says it is taking action over the issue and Turners
Cash and Carry insists they will act to make the site secure.
However, it remains open at the rear of the land, close to
housing, and the concerns remain.

Asbestos is still cited as the single biggest cause of work-
related deaths in the UK each year, with some 4,500 deaths
attributed to mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, and diffuse
pleural thickening, all caused by the material.

Coun Ruth Duffy said: "We been having to contact Wyre over
several years now, to get the boundary fencing repaired.

"We know that kids are using broken down fences to gain entrance.

"We are concerned that there are asbestos materials on the site
and that anyone exposed to it could in the future suffer a
horrible illness as a result.

"At one time the asbestos was at least stored away in an outhouse
but that has now fallen apart and the asbestos is easy to get at.

"We asked Wyre's Environmental Health team to carry out tests and
one of the officers has been back in touch to confirm the
presence of asbestos.

"We are not blaming Wyre Council, but urgent action really is
needed now."

Rachel Wilkinson, 31, of Broomfield Road, is Coun Duffy's
daughter and added: "Residents around here have to look at this
mess every day.

"Kids are playing there at night and apart from that being a
nuisance, they are also at risk. It is too easy to get in."

Barry Green, a director of Turners cash and Carry, said: "We have
recently put new fencing up at the side, but if it is still open
we will look to sort it out.

"We have outline planning permission for housing there, and we
are re-submitting our plans."

A Wyre Council spokeswoman said: "We have inspected the site and
there is asbestos within it. The land is privately owned and we
are taking action to address this."

Sgt Dan Whitaker, the Fleetwood and Thornton Cleveleys
Neighbourhood Sergeant, said: "We're aware of this and will be
taking our lead from Wyre Council's environmental health
department.

"We will be patrolling this area until the owners take the
necessary action to make it more secure."

Sgt Whitakersaid police were mindful of the health and safety
issues for local children.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Ships Locked Down on Fibro Fear
-----------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that two
naval service ships are in lockdown after workers were exposed to
asbestos during routine maintenance at dockyards in Cork,
Ireland.

Meanwhile, an investigation is being carried out by navy chiefs
into how outside consultants declared the ships to be asbestos-
free when they carried out a survey on them 14 years ago.  It
emerged that the alarm was raised early last week when routine
maintenance was carried out on the LE Orla in Verolme dockyard,
Cobh.

A worker spotted what he suspected was asbestos while inspecting
part of the ship's engine room.

In accordance with Health and Safety Authority regulations,
expert external consultants were immediately called in to take
samples, which later tested positive. The navy then locked down
the LE Orla's sister ship, the LE Ciara, which was also brought
into service in 1985.  She was undergoing routine maintenance at
the same time, but at the navy's own dockyard at its headquarters
at Haulbowline.

Tight security has been imposed on both vessels to ensure nobody
else is exposed before experts remove the material safely.

"The samples confirmed it was white asbestos, which is less
dangerous than blue or brown asbestos," a navy spokesman said.

Nevertheless, experts are trying to ascertain how many people may
have been exposed to potentially dangerous dust particles.  They
believe that at least eight workers may have been exposed and
they will be medically assessed.

The spokesman said both ships will be out of commission until
this process is completed and, in the interim, others ships will,
if necessary, take up the slack to ensure there is no reduction
in sea patrols.

Despite their age, neither of the two coastal patrol class
vessels are in line to be replaced in the immediate future.

Two older ships, the LE Emer and LE Aoife, are due to be replaced
by new EUR50m stealth-type warships.

The LE Samuel Beckett will be delivered in a couple of weeks to
replace the LE Emer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition to Follow Removal of Deadly Dust
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter de Graaf, writing for The Northern Advocate, reported that
demolition of the derelict Kaikohe Hotel is due to begin in
earnest next week as soon as hazardous asbestos has been removed.

Ken Rintoul, owner of the Okaihau firm Rintoul Civil, said the
demolition job on the hotel would take up to two months.

Asbestos removal had been subcontracted to two specialist
companies, including Whangarei's Barfoote Construction, which
completed the first phase.

With asbestos-bearing fibrolite panels now removed another firm
would remove the building's lagging and more hazardous blue
asbestos.

The hotel's now detached wing would be carefully taken apart so
its native timber could be re-used. Part of the proceeds from
selling the kauri and rimu would be donated to Kaikohe charities.

However, there was no way to save the striking mural painted on
the building last year by street artists from Russia, Auckland
and Warkworth.

Whether timber from the main building could be recycled would
depend on how far asbestos had spread.

The hotel dates back to 1894 but has no official protection. The
Historic Places Trust met last week with the current owner, Te
Runanga-a-iwi o Ngapuhi, seeking permission to document the hotel
before it was demolished.

The trust's Northland manager, Bill Edwards, said the meeting was
cordial but whether the request could be granted would depend on
the asbestos risk. It was a health and safety issue.

The hotel site will be grassed over and maintained by the
Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board until the runanga comes up with
a plan for the prime Broadway site.


                             *********

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  * * *