CAR_Public/140516.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 97

                             Headlines


1382 CAMPAGNOLA: Class Wants to Recover Misappropriated Tips
ALLSTATE FIRE: Removed "Radu" Insurance Suit to W.D. Washington
AMAZON.COM DEDC: Sued for Not Paying Warehouse Workers' Overtime
AMERICAN EAGLE: Suit Seeks to End Sending of Text Message Spam
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Rule Changes to Avert Concussion Suits

AXA EQUITABLE: Faces "Zweiman" Insurance Suit in S.D. New York
BANKSIA SECURITIES: Investors' Class Action Faces Delay
BATS GLOBAL: Diverted Billions of Dollars Annually, Suit Claims
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: "Adams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
BUTLER & HOSCH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CASINO ONE: Suit Seeks Damages Under Fair Labor Standards Act
CATERPILLAR INC: Accused of Selling Engines With Defective CRS
CHEMED CORP: Final Hearing for Securities Suit Settlement Set
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dodge Ram
CLEAREDGE POWER: Class Suit Filed for WARN Act Violations

COLLEGE ENTRANCE: Suit Seeks Release of Overtime Compensation
COMSCORE INC: Agrees to Resolve Class Action Over Software
CONSOLIDATED PRESSURE: Refused to Pay Overtime, Class Suit Says
COOPER TIRE: Securities Suit Dismissed After Merger Termination
COOPER TIRE: Faces Suit Anew for Terminated Apollo Merger Deal

CVS CAREMARK: Trial in Litigations Over 1999 Settlement Stayed
CVS CAREMARK: Certification Motions in Antitrust Suits Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Fails to Secure Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
CUSTOM BUILT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
CYTRX CORPORATION: Removed "Rajasekaran" Suit to C.D. California

DAYTON, MN: Police Chief Accused of Disclosing Driver's Info
FACEBOOK INC: "Levy" Plaintiff Appeals Securities MDL Dismissal
FAIRBRIDGE FARM: May 30 Class Suit Deadline Set for Ex-Residents
GENERAL MOTORS: Concealed Defect in Ignition Switches, Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Ignition Switch System

GENERAL MOTORS: "Melton" Rescind Accord, Re-file Ignition Suit
GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Denies Bid to Reinstate Gmail Class Suit
GOOGLE INC: Named Plaintiff Wants to Derail No-Poach Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Faces Derivative Suits Over No-Poach Practices
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Kids' In-App Class Action

HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued for Falsely Marketing Earth's Best Products
HERSHEY COMPANY: Suit by Chocolate Purchasers in U.S. Now Closed
HULU LLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Video Privacy Suit
JANDA LATINO: Fails to Pay Wages & Spread-of-Hours Pay, Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Certification of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mediation This Month in Settlement Appeal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit in B.C. Over McNeil Infants Drug
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bares Updates on CIO Investigations, Litigation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks to Dismiss Litigation by CDS Purchasers
JPMORGAN CHASE: Suit Over Foreign Exchange Rates Consolidated

JPMORGAN CHASE: Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement Appealed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Moves to Dismiss Amended Complaints Over LIBOR
JPMORGAN CHASE: Move to Junk Suit Over LIBOR, TIBOR Partly Denied
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Approves Settlement with BLMIS Trustee
JPMORGAN CHASE: Feeder Funds Investors Appeal Dismissal of Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: BLMIS Investors File Collective Suit in N.J.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Consolidated Suit by MF Global Investors
JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS-Related Insurer Claims Stand at $73 Billion
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Two Suits Over MBS Issue, Underwriting
JPMORGAN CHASE: Certification Sought in Suit Over Foreclosures

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Over Delayed Mortgage Documents
K&K INTERIORS: Accused of Violating FLSA's OT Wage Provisions
LINCOLN WOOD: Removed "Schussel" Class Suit to South Carolina
LINNCO ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Judge Approves Class Action Dismissal

MADISON SQUARE: Moves for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Lawsuit
MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Accused of Placing Illegal Robo-Calls
NEUROSCIENCE INC: Accused of Job Discrimination in Wisconsin
NEW YORK JETS: Former Cheerleader Files Minimum Wage Class Action
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

OLD NATIONAL: Mediation Ordered in Suit Related to Overdraft Fees
PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Delivery Sales Tax
PEPSICO INC: "Cortina" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
PEPSICO INC: "Riva" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
PHILLIP MORRIS: Reveals Tobacco-Related Lawsuits as of May 1

PHILIP MORRIS: Challenge Against Brazilian Suit Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Bares Number of Smoking, Health Suits as of May 1
PHILIP MORRIS: Sept. Hearing on Plaintiffs' Appeal in "El-Roy"
REGLAS PAINTING: Avoids Employer Obligations, Suit Says
RICON CORPORATION: Removed "Tirado" Class Suit to C.D. California

SOUTH FLORIDA QUALITY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SUPER MEX: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act in Cal.
TRANS WORLD: Seeks Approval of Pilots' Class Action Settlement
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Faces Discrimination Class Action
VIBRAM USA: Agrees to Settle FiveFingers Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing's Fibro Fight Spreading
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Fibro Probe in Older Naval Ships
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Rules for Defendant in Fibro Product Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Friendly Law "Disgrace", Daily Press Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Appeal for Help in Catching Fly-tippers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Article Blasts Gov. Walker Over Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concern in Fortune Minerals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Award Upheld for Fibro Supplier
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Snub Causation Testimony Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renters Demand Answers to Fibro Contamination

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Bill Limiting Venue in Fibro Cases Passed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: First Step Set for Maryland Buildings Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NT Man Admits Role in Federal Crime
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Is Aussie Community's Hidden Danger
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Burnham Building Poses Low Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Fibro Trial Attributed to Complexity
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Burning Building Near Infirmary
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Educ. Program Execs Sentenced Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nurses Air Concerns Over Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsfield Contractor Fined $24K Over Fibro Issue

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's Devastation at Dockyard Worker's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Contractors Fined for Storage Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Fines Real Estate Developer for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Boss Thinks Fibro Concern Was "A Beat Up"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Warns Defendant of Filing Baseless Motions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found After Bradford Hospital Blaze
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senator Wades in to Fibro Row at Psych Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Educ. Dept. to Remove Fibro From Wales School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Undecided on Fibro Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Judge Lifts Deferral on Punitive Damages

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winnebago County Board Gets Fibro Update
ASBESTOS UPDATE: KiwiRail's Fibro Locos Back to Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gauteng Gov't to Replace Fibro Roof Tiles
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Derelict Fitzroy Bldgs a Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Firm Says Fibro Claims Yet to Peak

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deal Brings Hope for Third-Wave Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rail Company Says No Fibro Was Disturbed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Staff Exposed to Fibro Fear for Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Fears for Sons' Wellbeing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DHEC Detects Fibro in Pile of Debris

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Staff Exposed to Fibro Fear for Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Finally Cleared from Gas Line Leak
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsinites Can Look to Ohio for Fibro Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homes with Fibro Insulation Should be Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Bypass Project Advances Amid Concerns

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ball Raises GBP11,000 for Fight v. Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Take-Home Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Losses Continues to Drag Earnings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Spark Picket of Parliament Square
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hiring Concerns Dominate Fibro Cleanup Meeting

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer, Bondex Want to Use Sealed Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Brussels Metro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Retains Jurisdiction Over PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Had $594.2MM Reserves for Fibro Loss
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Had $11.5MM Reserve for Fibro Loss

ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Has 1,097 Claims for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $60.4MM Vermiculite Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $2.1B Fibro Liability in Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Has 200 Fibro Lawsuits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Continues To Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,572 PI Claims at Dec. 31


                            *********


1382 CAMPAGNOLA: Class Wants to Recover Misappropriated Tips
------------------------------------------------------------
Hernan Pesantez, Luis Zhinin, David Ceja, Nikol Makaj, Jose
Marquez, Edison Tello, Manuel Tapia, Jose Tapia, Angel Cedillo,
Guillermo Cedillo, and Severo Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. 1382 Campagnola Holdings Corp.
d/b/a Campagnola, and Lori Wilson, Case No. 1:14-cv-03160-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, and misappropriated tips, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

1382 Campagnola Holdings Corp. is a New York corporation that owns
and operates Campagnola, a restaurant located in New York City.
Campagnola prepares and serves Italian food and alcoholic
beverages for customers on its premises.  Lori Wilson is an owner
of Campagnola.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Jessica N. Tischler, Esq.
          BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
                  tischler@bwp-law.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Removed "Radu" Insurance Suit to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Radu v. Allstate Fire &
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 14-2-09396-9, was removed
from the King County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington (Seattle).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00653 to the proceeding.

The case asserts insurance-related claims.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gavin Williams Skok, Esq.
          RIDDELL WILLIAMS
          1001 4th Ave Plaza, Suite 4500
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 624-3600
          Facsimile: (206) 389-1731
          E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com


AMAZON.COM DEDC: Sued for Not Paying Warehouse Workers' Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Johnson, Tyrone Fisher, Brian Gunter, Lester Mayo, Jeffrey
Hope, Latoshia Mack, and Christina Thomas, On Behalf of Themselves
and Others Similarly Situated v. Amazon.com dedc, LLC, Amazon
Corporate LLC, Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., SMX, LLC, and
Staff Management, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01797-JFA (D.S.C., May 2,
2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and other Warehouse Workers for overtime work and for
"off the clock hours" as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Amazon.com dedc, LLC, Amazon Corporate, LLC and Amazon Fulfillment
Services, Inc. are Delaware corporations headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.  Amazon.com dedc, LLC, Amazon Corporate, LLC and
Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. are subsidiaries of Amazon.com,
LLC, which owns and operates Amazon.com, the world's largest
online retail seller of goods.

SMX, LLC and Staff Management, Inc. are Illinois corporations
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.  Staff Management and SMX
provide labor and employment staffing services for Amazon.com for
the Fulfillment Centers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 849-1692
          Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

               - and -

          William C. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW, PLC
          690 Berkmar Circle
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 978-0100
          Facsimile: (434) 979-0037
          E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com


AMERICAN EAGLE: Suit Seeks to End Sending of Text Message Spam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Legg, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61058-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
May 3, 2014) is filed in an effort to put an end to text message
spam regularly received by the Plaintiff and to protect his
fundamental right to privacy as well as the rights of the putative
class members.

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation,
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and an international
clothing retailer with more than 1,000 retail stores, the vast
majority of which are located in the United States.  The
Defendant, Mr. Legg asserts, has made extensive use of mobile
marketing, including the use of mass text messaging, and in 2009
was awarded second place as mobile retailer of the year by Mobile
Commerce Daily.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Rule Changes to Avert Concussion Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cherny, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the lawyer who defended Brett Deledio on May 6 in the tribunal
case that immediately followed the landmark Jack Viney decision
believes that the Australian Football League's rule changes in
recent seasons have likely shielded it from a major payout to
footballers who suffer serious head injuries.

Paul Horvath, who acts as Richmond's legal counsel at the
tribunal, and is the principal of leading sports law firm
Sportslawyer, contends that the AFL was wise to implement a number
of recent rule changes aimed at stemming the damage from major
issues that were identified in their annual medical reports.

"The AFL is a sophisticated organization to state the bleeding
obvious," Mr. Horvath said.

"The outcomes of that research and reporting provides them with
clear information about where risks of injury arise in the game of
AFL football and particularly where there are patterns and trends
and particularly matters that could lead to long-term injuries
beyond simply physical injuries.

"From a legal point of view, once you're aware of something that
can lead to serious injury and risk and so on, and particularly
long-term head injury, and I'm particularly thinking of concussive
injury and related matters, the AFL has an obligation to act on
the information."

Mr. Horvath cited the heavily publicized respective plights of
dual Brownlow Medalist Greg Williams, former Demon Daniel Bell and
Eagles champion Dean Kemp as cases which likely heightened the
AFL's sense of urgency.  He was confident that the league's prompt
action in dealing with its increased knowledge about the risk of
repeated concussions has likely saved it from a potential NFL-
style class action.

A US$765 million settlement has been proposed to compensate the
more than 4000 NFL players who are suing the league for not acting
on the knowledge it had obtained about the possible damage caused
by on-field head injuries.

"From a legal point of view, you've got to show that you were
taking positive action to remove and reduce risks," Mr. Horvath
said.

While refusing to comment on the specifics of the Viney incident
due to its ongoing nature, Mr. Horvath argued that the league's
general approach to the bump, which has seen it undergo a
monumental change in interpretation over the past two decades,
likely put the AFL in the clear.

"The AFL is acting in a manner which I would suggest legally they
must to minimize their chances of being sued in the future on the
basis that they didn't act on a significant risk that they were
aware of to players in the game."

While conceding that elements of the game had changed, Mr. Horvath
described the alterations more as "fine-tuning," and indicated
there was little risk that football would ever deviate totally
from being a contact sport.

"You read in the papers on a weekly, monthly basis that a player's
received a broken neck or something in country football.

"Some of these things are probably going to happen from time to
time and unless you remove most of the rules from the sport and
change it to a completely different game all together . . . that
risk is always going to be there, and people probably accept some
of those risks when they go in to play the sport, but the rule
makers have a responsibility to change some of those rules."


AXA EQUITABLE: Faces "Zweiman" Insurance Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Zweiman, executriz, on behalf of the Estate of Anne
Zweiman, and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-03128-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 2,
2014) asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          David Charles Harrison, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  dharrison@lowey.com


BANKSIA SECURITIES: Investors' Class Action Faces Delay
-------------------------------------------------------
Everard Himmelreich, writing for The Standard, reports that the
class action against the failed Banksia Securities Limited finance
company is not likely to go to the Supreme Court until next year,
the solicitor co-ordinating the case says.

Mark Elliott said the claim against Banksia and others associated
with the failed company was for $150 million.  Mr. Elliott said
opposition to the latest proposed statement of claim by two of the
defendants in the case -- TrustCo, which was the trustee for both
Banksia and Statewide Secured Investments, which was bought by
Banksia, and Banksia's auditors RSD Chartered Accountants -- was
likely to delay the start of a court trial.

In other developments in the case, Mr. Elliott said on the class
action's website that he was unable to continue personally funding
the case and, more importantly, to meet any significant security
for the immediate payment of costs that might be ordered by the
Supreme Court.

Mr. Elliott said he had recently arranged for a group of
experienced and financially strong investors to invest $2 million
in a new public company that had agreed to fund the class action.
He said a company associated with his family was among the
investors and he was one of the three directors of the new company
that was called BSL Litigation Partners Limited.

Laurence Bolitho, who was lead plaintiff representing the Banksia
investors taking the class action, had recently agreed to appoint
the company as the funder of the class action, Mr. Elliott said.
He said the agreement proposed, subject to court approval, that
BSL Litigation Partners be entitled to the recovery of its legal
costs and disbursements plus a 30 per cent fee out of the net
settlement or judgment proceeds if the class action was
successful.  If unsuccessful, BSL would not be entitled to recover
any money it had spent on the case.

Mr. Elliott said he would continue to act on a no win/no fee basis
but BSL Litigation Partners would pay for costs such as counsels'
fees and witness expenses.


BATS GLOBAL: Diverted Billions of Dollars Annually, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
American European Insurance Company, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., Box
Options Exchange LLC, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., C2 Options Exchange, Inc., Direct
Edge ECN, LLC, International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc.,
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc., Nasdaq OMX PHLX,
LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange, LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc., Bank Of America Corporation, Barclays PLC,
Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group Ag, Deutsche Bank AG, The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, UBS AG, The Charles Schwab Corporation, E*Trade Financial
Corporation, FMR, LLC, Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, Scottrade
Financial Services, Inc., TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation,
Wedbush Securities, Inc., Citadel LLC, DRW Holdings, LLC, GTS
Securities, LLC, Hudson River Trading LLC, Jump Trading, LLC, KCQ
Holdings, Inc., Quantlab Financial LLC, Tower Research Capital
LLC, Tradebot Systems, Inc., Tradeworx Inc., Virtu Financial Inc.
and Chopper Trading, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03133-UA (S.D.N.Y., May
2, 2014) is brought on behalf of public investors, who purchased
and sold shares of stock in the United States between April 18,
2009, and the present on a registered public stock exchange (the
"Exchange Defendants") or a United States-based alternate trading
venue and were injured as a result of the Defendants' alleged
misconduct.

The case arises out of an alleged scheme and wrongful course of
business whereby the Defendants employed devices, contrivances,
manipulations and artifices to defraud in a manner that was
designed to and did manipulate the U.S. securities markets and the
trading of equities on those markets, diverting billions of
dollars annually from buyers and sellers of securities to
themselves, according to the complaint.

BATS Global Markets, Inc., along with its operating subsidiaries
BATS BZX Exchange, Inc. and BATS BYX Exchange, Inc., is an
electronic stock exchange based in Lenexa, Kansas.  BATS was
founded in June 2005 as an Electronic Communication Network and
its name stands for Better Alternative Trading System.  BATS
operates two stock exchanges in the United States, the BZX
Exchange and the BYX Exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312)377-1181
          Facsimile: (312)377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: "Adams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Adams v. Biomet Orthopedics, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00169, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana.  The Indiana District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01488-RLM-CAN to the
proceeding.

Sophia Adams alleges that contrary to the Defendants' marketing
campaigns and representations, many patients experienced premature
failure due to component loosening, component malalignment,
dislocation and fracture, due to the unsafe design of the M2a.

Biomet Orthopedics, Inc., Biomet, Inc. and Biomet Manufacturing
Corp. are Indiana corporations headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.

The M2a was developed by the Defendants in order to reconstruct
human hip joints due to conditions, including osteoarthritis,
rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, functional deformity or
femoral fracture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melvin David Riggs, Esq.
          RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS
          502 West Sixth Street
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 587-3161
          Facsimile: (918) 587-9708
          E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com


BUTLER & HOSCH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret B. Clark, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Butler & Hosch, P.A., a Florida Professional
Corporation, and Nelson A. Perez, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-
14183-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASINO ONE: Suit Seeks Damages Under Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Van Booven, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pinnacle Entertainment , Inc., Casino One
Corporation, PNK (River City), LLC d/b/a River City Casino and
River City Casino and Hotel, Case No. 4:14-cv-00851 (E.D. Mo.,
May 2, 2014) is an action for monetary damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief and other equitable and ancillary relief,
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pinnacle Entertainment is a Delaware Corporation that operates a
casino called River City Casino and Hotel.  River City Casino and
River City Casino and Hotel are fictitious names registered with
the Missouri Secretary of State.  Casino One Corporation is a
Missouri Corporation, which owned or operated in part or in whole
River City.  PNK (River City), LLC is a Missouri limited liability
corporation, and owned or operated, in part or in whole, River
City.  River City is a gambling establishment engaged in the
business of legalized gambling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel K. Touhy, Esq.
          225 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 253-3838
          Facsimile: (312) 614-1813
          E-mail: dtouhy@dantouhylaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart I. Platt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STUART I. PLATT
          1100 Town & Country Commons
          P.O. Box 6815
          Chesterfield, MO 63006-6815
          Telephone: (314) 469-2710
          Cellular Phone: (314) 406-1664
          Facsimile: (314) 469-9921
          E-mail: splattlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Hamburg
          STEVEN M. HAMBURG, P.C.
          231 South Bemiston, Suite 1111
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-8000
                     (314) 450-7113
          Facsimile: (314) 726-5837
          E-mail: Shamburg@smhpc-law.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
          E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


CATERPILLAR INC: Accused of Selling Engines With Defective CRS
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&M Mercado, Inc., a California corporation, and German Saravia,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03407-
SVW-SH (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2014) is brought on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated entities or persons, who purchased or
leased a vehicle with a 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010 Caterpillar,
Inc. C-13 or C-15 heavy duty on-highway diesel engine
(collectively "MY22007 CAT Engine") in Utah.

MY2007 CAT engine contains exhaust emission controls to reduce
diesel engine exhaust emissions in compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 Heavy Duty On Highway
Emissions Standard, according to the complaint.  To meet the EPA
2007 Emission Standard applicable to heavy duty, on-highway diesel
engines, Caterpillar designed, manufactured, sold for profit, and
warranted MY2007 CAT Engines with an exhaust emission control
system containing integrated components intended to reduce air
pollutants, in particular, oxides of nitrogen and particulate
matter, to levels not to exceed those set by the 2007 Standard.
The exhaust emission control system employed by CAT is known as
the "Caterpillar Regeneration System" or "CRS."

The Defendant's CRS is defective in material and workmanship
causing the vehicle to not function as required under all
operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even
after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements, Mr.
Bagley alleges.  He contends that these repeated warranty repairs
and replacements failed to repair or correct the CRS defect
resulting in damages, including diminished value of the vehicles
powered by MY2007 CAT Engines, and the costs to re-power the
vehicles with diesel engines that are compliant with the 2007 EPA
Emission Standards.

Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located in Peoria, Illinois, and is registered
to conduct business in Georgia.  Caterpillar designed,
manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected,
marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the MY2007 CAT
Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control, the CRS, to
be free of defects in material and workmanship.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  MPifko@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  LTaylor@carellabyrne.com


CHEMED CORP: Final Hearing for Securities Suit Settlement Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement reached in In re Chemed Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D. Ohio) is scheduled
for a final hearing on July 19, 2014, according to the company's
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
the Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole,
In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-
cv-28 (S.D. Ohio).  On June 18, 2012, an amended complaint was
filed alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and
violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and O'Toole.  The suit's
allegations concern the VITAS hospice segment of the Company's
business.  Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from
Defendants' alleged failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent
scheme at VITAS to enroll ineligible hospice patients and to
fraudulently obtain payments from the federal government.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 17, 2012, which were pending when the parties reached an
agreement to settle the action.

On June 7, 2013, following the filing of U.S. v. VITAS, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Defendants opposed this motion.  On September 16, 2013, Plaintiffs
executed a Settlement Term Sheet with Defendants, reaching an
agreement in principle to settle this case subject to Court
approval.  On February 6, 2014, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock between
February 15, 2010 and May 2, 2013, inclusive, executed a
stipulation of settlement with defendants, agreeing to settle this
case in full and with prejudice, and to provide Defendants with
full releases of all claims that are or could have been asserted
by Plaintiffs in exchange for payment of $6.0 million by the
company's insurer into a settlement fund for the benefit of the
putative settlement class ("Settlement").  The Settlement of $6.0
million has been recorded as an accrual and offsetting prepaid in
the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. This Settlement
received preliminary Court approval on March 27, 2014 and is
scheduled for a final hearing on July 19, 2014.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dodge Ram
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
proposed defective products class-action lawsuit has been filed
against Chrysler Group LLC.

Some call it a shimmy.  Others call it the "death wobble."
Regardless of the name, the potential failure of a vital component
integral to vehicle steering can pose dangerous and even fatal
consequences.  And in spite of Chrysler Dodge Ram Recalls,
plaintiffs are taking the manufacturer to court over what has been
alleged as a design flaw, together with allegations with regard to
the unavailability of parts, and the inability to schedule
appointments for repair and replacement.

The Dodge Ram is a favored vehicle amongst working professionals
such as contractors and farmers -- or any individual in need of a
rugged, dependable pickup.  However, plaintiffs allege that Dodge
Ram vehicles spanning model years 2008 through 2012 have been
anything but.

The issue, according to court records, is the driver's side
tie-rod ball stud.  Plaintiffs allege the component is defective
and not sufficiently robust to withstand normal use.  The
allegation is that the component has the potential to fracture
under normal driving conditions.

The problem -- corrected with a redesign starting with the 2013
model year -- can cause shimmy and wobble with the potential to
cause the driver to lose control at high speeds.  A proposed
class-action lawsuit against Chrysler Group LLC was filed in early
April.

The complaint referenced weakness exacerbated "by the defective
design of the cross car steering linkage system, which allows
contact between the ball stud and the ball housing, thereby
weakening the stud.

"Shortly after releasing the 2008 model year class vehicles,
Chrysler became aware of ball studs fracturing at a high rate
necessitating left tie-rod replacements.  Despite its awareness of
the problem, Chrysler opted to conceal the existence of the defect
from plaintiffs and the general public," the complaint said.

"Chrysler has issued multiple recalls for the defect, but has yet
to solve the problem and does not even have enough of the
necessary parts to begin the repairs.  Moreover, the defect is
unrepairable, due to design restrictions on the size of the ball
stud."

The 2013 redesign of the venerable Dodge Ram, models 2500 through
5500, is viewed as a major step forward in addressing the alleged
design flaw that affected earlier designs.  But that does little
for the owners of recalled vehicles who may have spent more money
than they should have in an attempt to keep a defective vehicle on
the road, and allegedly can't get their existing recalled vehicle
properly repaired.

For a contractor or other working professional, such allegedly
defective products can affect business.  "As a result of
Chrysler's practices, plaintiffs and class members purchased class
vehicles they otherwise would not have purchased, paid more for
those vehicles than they would have paid, unnecessarily paid --
and will continue to pay -- repair costs as a result of the
defect, and suffered diminution of those vehicles' resale value,"
the complaint said.

The case is Shaun Sater et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, Case No.
5:14-cv-00700 in the US District Court for the Central District of
California.


CLEAREDGE POWER: Class Suit Filed for WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wojciechowski, on his own behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated former employees of ClearEdge Power Inc. and
its affiliates, has commenced an adversary proceeding in
bankruptcy court to seek damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and
ERISA benefits by reason of the Debtors' violation of the former
employees' rights under the WARN Act.

Mr. Wojciechowski was an employee of the Debtors and was
terminated as part of, or as a result of, a mass layoff ordered by

Defendants on or about April 25, 2014.  As such, the Debtors
allegedly violated the WARN Act by failing to give its employees
at least 60 days' advance notice of termination, as required by
the WARN Act.

The plaintiff is represented by:

         Gail L. Chung, Esq.
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 638-8800
         Fax: (646) 509-2070
         E-mail: gl@outtengolden.com

              - and -

         Jack A. Raisner
         Ren‚ S. Roupinian
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 245-1000
         E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                 rsr@outtengolden.com


COLLEGE ENTRANCE: Suit Seeks Release of Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Stockov, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. College Entrance Examination Board d/b/a The College
Board, Case No. 1:14-cv-00492-GBL-TRJ (E.D. Va., May 2, 2014)
seeks to restrain the Defendant from continuing to withhold
overtime compensation found to be due to any of its employees and
former employees.

College Entrance Examination Board, doing business as The College
Board, is a New York corporation with one of its principal offices
located in Reston, Virginia.  The College Board is an
organization, which works with various stakeholders in activities
related to student preparation, testing, admission and access to
postsecondary education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Malik Kemal Cutlar, Esq.
          PCT LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1725 Duke Street, Suite 240
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 519-6906
          E-mail: mcutlar@pctlg.com


COMSCORE INC: Agrees to Resolve Class Action Over Software
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that
measurement company comScore has tentatively agreed to resolve a
class-action lawsuit brought by panel members who say they didn't
realize the full extent of data the company collected.
comScore says in court papers filed on May 5 that it has reached
"an agreement in principle" with the consumers who sued.  comScore
and the consumers' attorneys indicate that they will come to a
final agreement by next month.  Terms of the tentative deal
haven't been disclosed.

If finalized, the agreement will resolve a privacy lawsuit brought
by panel members Jeff Dunstan and Mike Harris in 2011.  They said
they installed comScore's software after downloading a free
product, like a screensaver or game.  Both consumers argued that
comScore's terms of service didn't alert them about the
"terrifying" amount of data the company collects -- including
usernames and passwords, search queries, credit card numbers and
retail transactions.

They also contend that comScore's marketing partners -- who bundle
comScore software with freeware -- often don't disclose
information about comScore until after people start downloading
the free programs.  Messrs. Dunstan and Harris argue that comScore
violated various federal privacy laws by capturing information
from people's computers without obtaining their informed consent.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman in the
Northern District of Illinois issued a key ruling against
comScore: He ruled that the case could proceed as a class-action
and certified a class of everyone since 2005 who downloaded
comScore's software from a third party.

That group could include as many as 10 million people, according
to the consumers' lawyer, Jay Edelson.

At the time, Seattle-based Internet legal expert Venkat
Balasubramani told Online Media Daily that Judge Holderman's
decision would likely put pressure on comScore to settle. One
reason is that the relatively large number of panelists who might
be affected by the case means that comScore potentially faces the
risk of high damages if it loses at trial.

comScore attempted to immediately appeal Judge Holderman's ruling
to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  That move drew the backing
of the Direct Marketing Association and other ad trades, but the
appellate court refused to hear the case.

ComScore and the consumers are expected to file papers with the
court again in June.  But even if they have reached a final
agreement, Judge Holderman likely won't approve a class-action
settlement until after it's publicized and people have the
opportunity to weigh in with objections.


CONSOLIDATED PRESSURE: Refused to Pay Overtime, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene George, on Behalf of Himself Section and Others Similarly
Situated v. Consolidated Pressure Control, LLC; Otto Windholz,
Jr., J.E. Connors, Jr., and Jason Legnon, Case No. 4:14-cv-01216
(S.D. Tex., May 2, 2014) alleges that the Defendants required and
permitted the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but refused, and continue to refuse, to compensate him overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Consolidated Pressure Control, LLC is a Texas Limited Liability
Company that regularly transacts business in the state of Texas.
The Individual Defendants are managers or officers of Consolidated
Pressure.  The Defendants operate a fabrication and assembly shop
that engineers, designs, and builds drilling equipment for the oil
and gas industry.  The Defendants build oilfield equipment on
property located in Conroe, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          WARD LAW FIRM
          Parkwood One
          10077 Grogan's Mill Road, Suite 450
          The Woodlands, TX 77380
          Telephone: (281) 362-7728
          Facsimile: (281) 362-7743
          E-mail: ward@dwardlaw.com


COOPER TIRE: Securities Suit Dismissed After Merger Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Stockholders
Litigation, No. 9658 VCL and Auld v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et
al., No. 2013 CV 293 voluntarily dismissed the Delaware and Ohio
lawsuits after the termination of a merger with subsidiaries of
Apollo Tyres Ltd., according to Cooper's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the
Company by wholly owned subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (the
"Apollo entities") in June 2013, alleged stockholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits in state courts in
Delaware and Ohio. These lawsuits, captioned In re Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co. Stockholders Litigation, No. 9658 VCL and Auld v.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 2013 CV 293, alleged that
the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by agreeing to enter into the proposed
transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as the result of an
allegedly unfair process. The lawsuits sought, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief.  On December 30, 2013, the
Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo entities.
Following the termination of the merger agreement, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Delaware and Ohio lawsuits in April
2014.

On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cooper Tire Co. v.
Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd., et al., No. 8980- VCG,
asking that the Apollo entities be required to use their
reasonable efforts to close the then-pending merger transaction as
expeditiously as possible and also seeking, among other things,
declaratory relief and damages. On October 14, 2013, the Apollo
entities filed counterclaims against the Company seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 8, 2013, after expedited proceedings, the court found
that the Apollo entities had not materially breached the merger
agreement. On December 19, 2013, the Apollo entities moved for an
entry of declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the
conditions to closing the then-pending transaction were not
satisfied before the November 2013 trial. On December 30, 2013,
the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo
entities, and requested payment of the reverse termination fee,
which the Apollo entities have refused to do. On January 27, 2014,
the court determined that it would proceed with a decision on the
Apollo entities' motion for declaratory judgment. Briefing on that
motion is complete. The court has not set a hearing date for that
motion.


COOPER TIRE: Faces Suit Anew for Terminated Apollo Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. faces a new shareholder lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating
to the terminated Apollo Tyres Ltd. transaction, according to
Apollo's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That
lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that
the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities
laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection
with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things,
damages.


CVS CAREMARK: Trial in Litigations Over 1999 Settlement Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court proceedings in lawsuits filed purportedly on
behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against CVS
Caremark Corporation are stayed by statute pending a decision on
the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Caremark (the term "Caremark" being used herein to generally refer
to any one or more pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries of the
Company, as applicable) was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John
Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999
settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include
insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with
respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks
approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-
specified damages based on allegations that the amount of
insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was
misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in
November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court,
naming as defendants Caremark, several insurance companies,
attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This
lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was
subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action.
Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order
appointed class representatives and class counsel. The defendants'
appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal are pending before the Alabama
Supreme Court. The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by
statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the
Alabama Supreme Court.


CVS CAREMARK: Certification Motions in Antitrust Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within In
Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, remain pending,
according to CVS Caremark Corporation's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October
2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The
North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities
named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and
the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties
pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision
which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the
proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the
Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of
the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue
case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate
appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued
an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012,
the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and
directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for
class certification in the coordinated cases within the
multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.


CVS CAREMARK: Fails to Secure Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
denied the renewed motion of CVS Caremark Corporation to dismiss a
securities lawsuit, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs
subsequently amended the lawsuit to allege a class period
beginning October 30, 2008. The lawsuit names the Company and
certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of
securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the
Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider
trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed
in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and
certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which was stayed
pending developments in the related securities class action,
includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud,
insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges
that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly
inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January
2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class
action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's ruling on
the motion to dismiss. In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings. In December 2013, the
district court denied the Company's renewed motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit is presently stayed pending
further developments in the class action.


CUSTOM BUILT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 2014, the San Francisco employment law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against Custom Built Personal Training, Inc. alleging that the
company failed to accurately pay overtime and regular wages to
their personal Trainers.  The class action complaint against
Custom Built for alleged unpaid wages and missed meal periods is
currently pending in the Monterey Superior Court, entitled
Bennett, et al. v. Custom Built Personal Training, Inc., Case No.
M 127596.

The lawsuit alleges that Custom Built inaccurately recorded the
actual number of hours worked and as a result failed to pay the
Personal Trainers for all their time spent working at their
assigned health clubs, including overtime hours worked.  The
complaint asserts that the Personal Trainers were paid on a piece
rate basis when conducting a training session and that while these
employees waited for work to be assigned to them they also
performed various non-training tasks but were allegedly not
allowed to record these hours.  As a result, the Complaint alleges
the Personal Trainers were required to work many unpaid hours.
The Complaint also asserts a claim under California's meal and
rest period laws for Custom Builts' alleged failure to provide
full off-duty thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods to its
Personal Trainers.

The firm representing the Personal Trainers in the Custom Built
lawsuit also represents Personal Trainers working for Western
Athletic Clubs in a class action entitled Miller, et al. v.
Western Athletic Clubs, Case No. CGC-12-526494 pending in the San
Francisco County Superior Court.

With employment law offices located in San Diego, San Francisco,
and Los Angeles, the California employment law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have a statewide practice of
representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Removed "Rajasekaran" Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation,
et al., Case No. BC541426, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-03406 to the proceeding.

On April 3, 2014, Kannan Rajasekaran filed the putative securities
class action complaint purportedly on behalf of all persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
CytRx pursuant or traceable to the Company's secondary public
stock offering, which the Company announced on January 31, 2014.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas J. Nolan, Esq.
          Lisa M. Gilford, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: Thomas.Nolan@skadden.com
                  Lisa.Gilford@skadden.com

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Alexander Safyan, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                  asafyan@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          George S. Trevor, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: gtrevor@pswlaw.com


DAYTON, MN: Police Chief Accused of Disclosing Driver's Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Orduno, Individually and On Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Richard Pietrzak, in his individual capacity
as the Chief of Police of the City of Dayton; City of Dayton; John
and Jane Does (1 - 120) acting in their individual capacity as
supervisors in the City of Dayton; Michael Campion, in his
individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety; Mona Dohman, in her individual capacity as
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, John
and Jane Doe Employees of the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety in their individual capacities as officers, supervisors,
staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Case No. 0:14-cv-01393-ADM-
JSM (D. Minn., May 2, 2014) is an action for injunctive relief and
money damages for injuries sustained when Chief Richard Pietrzak
illegally obtained, disclosed, or used the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private, personal and confidential driver's license
information without a legitimate or permissible law-enforcement
purpose or any other lawful purpose.

Richard Pietrzak is a resident of the state of Minnesota and the
Chief of Police of the City of Dayton.  The City of Dayton is a
city in Minnesota.  Michael Campion and Ramona "Mona" Dohman,
during part of the relevant time period, were appointed and acting
as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
The Doe Defendants are unknown employees of the City of Dayton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Strauss, Esq.
          Lorenz F. Fett, Esq.
          Sonia Miller-Van Oort, Esq.
          Kenneth H. Fukuda, Esq.
          SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP PLLC
          12 South Sixth Street, Suite 1242
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 756-7100
          Facsimile: (612) 756-7101
          E-mail: jons@sapientialaw.com
                  larryf@sapientialaw.com
                  soniamv@sapientialaw.com
                  kennf@sapientialaw.com

               - and -

          Susan M. Holden, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Esq.
          SIEBEN GROSE VON HOLTUM & CAREY
          901 Marquette Avenue, Suite 500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-4500
          Facsimile: (612) 333-5970
          E-mail: susan.holden@knowyourrights.com
                  jeffrey.montpetit@knowyourrights.com


FACEBOOK INC: "Levy" Plaintiff Appeals Securities MDL Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Levy, derivatively on behalf of Facebook, Inc., appeals to
the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit Court of
appeals from: (1) the judgments entered on April 22, 2014, and
April 23, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York; and (2) the District Court's opinion and
order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss entered
February 12, 2013.

Plaintiff-Appellant Lidia Levy is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: egleston@gme-law.com

The other MDL Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          Jordan Abraham Cortez, Esq.
          Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NYC)
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                  jcortez@entwistle-law.com
                  vcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NJ)
          30 Columbia Turnpike
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (212) 894-7207
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  victornj@ix.netcom.com
                  fisquith@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
          Michael Glenn McLellan, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN
          1050 30th, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: jake@zamansky.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com
                  aabbey@abbeyspanier.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  malba@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

               - and -

          Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq.
          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
                  jabraham@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Qayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          Facsimile: (610) 225-2678
          E-mail: jmp@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Avenue, First Floor
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          Facsimile: (610) 408-8062
          E-mail: rw@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Gustavo Fabian Bruckner, Esq.
          Marc Ian Gross, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  gfBruckner@pomlaw.com
                  migross@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joy A. Kruse, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

               - and -

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Patrick Hugh Moran, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
          Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4657
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  weintraub@whafh.com

               - and -

          David P. Abel, Esq.
          James M. Hughes, Esq.
          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          William Stephen Norton, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: dabel@motleyrice.com
                  jhughes@motleyrice.com
                  jrice@motleyrice.com
                  bnorton@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Mark Labaton, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 475
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-7992
          Facsimile: (310) 552-8054
          E-mail: mlabaton@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Rebecca M. Katz, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC (NY)
          600 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          E-mail: rkatz@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Kevin Sylvan Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-5402
          E-mail: cpolaszek@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Domenico George Minerva, Esq.
          Peter George Safirstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
          5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2315
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
          E-mail: dminerva@forthepeople.com
                  psafirstein@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229

               - and -

          Ann Miller, Esq.
          DONOVAN, MILLER, L.L.C.
          1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6020

               - and -

          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: dquitt@hfesq.com
                  rharwood@hfesq.com

               - and -

          Douglas Matthew Risen, Esq.
          Robin B. Switzenbaum, Esq.
          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4636
          E-mail: drisen@bm.net
                  rswitzenbaum@bm.net
                  tcollins@bm.net

               - and -

          Curtis Victor Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@gmail.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &CHECK, LLP (PA)
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com
                  shandler@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, L.L.P.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

               - and -

          Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Bradley Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP (NYC2)
          77 Water Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 722-4180
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Mark Robert Rosen, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: mrosen@barrack.com

               - and -

          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sward@barrack.com
                  sbasser@barrack.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Beth T. Seltzer, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Klafter, Esq.
          Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com
                  SLesser@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Kurt Olsen, Esq.
          2121 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (703) 351-5199

               - and -

          Shiyong Ye, Esq.
          MURRAY FANK & SAILER
          275 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (415) 793-6165
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: sye@reidwise.com

               - and -

          Seth David Rigrodsky, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302)-295-5305
          Facsimile: (302)-654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Timothy John MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          585 Stewart Avenue, Suite 304
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue, South 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

               - and -

          Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq.
          Michael A. Rose, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHUMACHER SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          185 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-0057
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
          E-mail: fs@hachroselaw.com
                  ss@hachroselaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Paul Saltzman, Esq.
          SCHOENGOLD & SPORN, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 964-0046
          Facsimile: (212) 267-8137
          E-mail: jay@saltzmanlawny.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Hall, Jr., Esq.
          Frederic Scott Fox, Sr., Esq.
          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq.
          Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP (NYC)
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: dhall@kaplanfox.com
                  ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                  pmayer@kaplanfox.com
                  rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          BRAGAR WEXLER EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: squire@bragarwexler.com
                  eagel@bespc.com

               - and -

          Anne L. Box, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, LLP (CA)
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: abox@scott-scott.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: dweintraub@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Egleston, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. EGLESTON
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 220
          North Miami Beach, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 892-8088

               - and -

          Andrew R. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Jared Bennett Stamell, Esq.
          Richard J. Schager, Jr., Esq.
          STAMELL & SCHAFER LLP
          One Liberty Plaza, 35/F
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 566-4054
          Facsimile: (212) 466-4061
          E-mail: goldenberg@ssnyc.com
                  stamell@ssnyc.com
                  schager@ssnyc.com

               - and -

          Bryan Andrew Wood, Esq.
          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Patrick Thomas Egan, Esq.
          Jason Mathew Leviton, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO (MA)
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: bwood@bermandevalerio.com
                  pegan@bermandevalerio.com
                  jason@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Brian James Robbins, Esq.
          Felipe J. Arroyo, Esq.
          Shane Palmesano Sanders, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO, LLP
          600 "B" Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: notice@robbinsarroyo.com
                  ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

               - and -

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          100 Park Ave, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
          E-mail: lasky@laskyrifkind.com

               - and -

          Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP (NYC)
          654 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10065
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          Terrell Wallace Oxford, Esq.
          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 754-1907
          Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
          E-mail: dcharest@susmangodfrey.com
                  toxford@susmangodfrey.com
                  wburns@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (617)-398-5600
          Facsimile: (617)-507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Bridget Veronica Hamill, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: bhamill@murrayfrank.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          Facsimile: (214) 239-8901

               - and -

          Willie Charles Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          The Preston Commons
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314
          Facsimile: (214) 706-9315
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          James Vary Bashian, Esq.
          JAMES V. BASHIAN, LAW OFFICES
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 921-4110
          Facsimile: (212)-921-4249
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com

               - and -

          Troy Robin King, Esq.
          KING & NIX, LLC
          7020 Fain Park Drive, Suite 1
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 215-4440
          Facsimile: (334) 215-4438

               - and -

          Jonathan Robert Simon, Esq.
          JONATHAN R. SIMON D/B/A THE ORLANDO FAMILY FIRM
          121 S Orange Ave., Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 377-6399
          Facsimile: (407) 377-6699
          E-mail: jonathan@theorlandofamilyfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-303
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: peterb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Sue Jin Kim, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8033
          Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: asokolowski@initiativelegal.com
                  JLurie@InitiativeLegal.com
                  skim@initiativelegal.com

               - and -

          Christopher Adam Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Bradley Keith King, Esq.
          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON, P.C.
          10850 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          David Elliot, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 238-0622
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

               - and -

          Jon Charles Furgison, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JON FURGISON
          444 Longfellow
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 356-6890
          Facsimile: (310) 356-7812
          E-mail: jonfurg@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ & ASIEDU
          Box 2006
          Artesia, CA 90702
          Telephone: (310) 792-3948
          Facsimile: (561) 423-3948
          E-mail: asiedu@outlook.com

               - and -

          George M. Fleming, Esq.
          FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, L.L.P.
          2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77056-6109
          Telephone: (713) 621-7944
          Facsimile: (713) 621-9638
          E-mail: george_fleming@fleming-law.com

               - and -

          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 King St.
          P.O. Box 1328
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 888-6542
          Facsimile: (302) 658-8111
          E-mail: khdavenport@prickett.com
                  mhanrahan@prickett.com
                  pafioravanti@prickett.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Darryl M. Bloodworth, Esq.
          DEAN, MEAD, EGERTON, BLOODWORTH, CAPOUANO & BOZARTH, PA
          800 N Magnolia Ave., Suite 1500
          PO Box 2346
          Orlando, FL 32802-2346
          Telephone: (407) 841-1200
          Facsimile: (407) 423-1831
          E-mail: dbloodworth@deanmead.com

               - and -

          Margaret Osborne Padilla, Esq.
          Paul Lantieri, III, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
          William A. Slaughter, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 864-8529
          Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
          E-mail: padillam@ballardspahr.com
                  lantierip@ballardspahr.com
                  kastenberg@ballardspahr.com
                  slaughter@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Griffin, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4212
          Facsimile: (713) 752-4221
          E-mail: rgriffin@jw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC)
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4836
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: aclubok@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Brant Warren Bishop, Esq.
          Susan Elisabeth Engel, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (WASHINGTON)
          655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5067
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: bbishop@kirkland.com
                  seengel@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          James Francis Basile, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com
                  jbasile@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Lindsay Michelle Kwoka, Esq.
          Susan W. Waesco, Esq.
          William M. Lafferty, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 North Market Street
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 598-6116
          Facsimile: (302) 425-3088
          E-mail: swaesco@mnat.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Bernstein, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          1875 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 303-1108
          Facsimile: (202) 303-2000
          E-mail: rbernstein@willkie.com

               - and -

          Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
          Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP (NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com
                  tcosenza@willkie.com

The appellate case is Lidia Levy, Derivatively on Behalf of
Facebook, Inc., v Mark Zuckerberg, et al., Case No. 14-1445, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The
multidistrict litigation is In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Securities &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. No. 1:12-md-02389-RWS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


FAIRBRIDGE FARM: May 30 Class Suit Deadline Set for Ex-Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that advertisements have been issued nationally
calling on former residents of Fairbridge Farm at Molong to decide
if they want to be part of a class action.

Many former British child migrants who were sent to Fairbridge say
they were physically and sexually abused.  The Supreme Court has
granted them the right to sue the the Commonwealth and State
Governments and the Fairbridge Foundation.

In the next step in the proceedings, a public notice has been
issued aimed at anyone who was a Fairbridge child who has suffered
the effects of abuse that occurred between 1937 and 1974.  If
people want to be part of the class action and they can register
with the plaintiff's solicitors and potentially share in any
damages, although if the case is unsuccessful, they can't sue in
any other proceedings.

Former residents can also legally opt out of the proceedings and
compensation.  People must make their choice and take action by
May 30.


GENERAL MOTORS: Concealed Defect in Ignition Switches, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jolene Fugate v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-00071-ART
(E.D. Ky., May 2, 2014) involves the Defendant's alleged conscious
decision to overlook, and in fact conceal, a deadly design defect
in vehicle ignition switches in millions of GM vehicles placed on
the road since 2003.

The defective ignition switches were manufactured by Delphi
Automotive PLC.  Once a subsidiary of Old GM, Delphi spun off from
Old GM in 1999, and became an independent publicly held
corporation.

General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  The
Defendant was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation.  The Defendant manufactures and
distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan
manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building
          312 South Fourth Street, 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Ignition Switch System
---------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 9:14-cv-
80591-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2014) arises from GM's alleged scheme
to defraud GM consumers through its failure to disclose and active
concealment of a defect in certain GM cars that renders them
unsafe to drive.

The defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is
susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions, according
to the complaint.  When the ignition switch system fails, the
switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off"
or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.

GM is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.  GM was incorporated in 2009, and on July 10,
2009, acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain
liabilities of General Motors Corporation through a sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Eidson, Esq.
          Curtis B. Miner, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: mike@colson.com
                  curt@colson.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Melton" Rescind Accord, Re-file Ignition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the parents of a woman whose 2011 death prompted General
Motors Co.'s recall of 2.6 million vehicles have re-filed their
lawsuit, alleging that the automaker knew about an ignition system
defect for a decade -- even secretly redesigned the switch -- but
didn't tell the public.

Ken and Beth Melton, who settled their case against GM in
September on behalf of their daughter, Brooke Melton, 29, moved to
rescind their settlement in light of new documents submitted by GM
in the past few months.  They also seek sanctions against GM,
alleging the automaker concealed evidence and that one of its lead
engineers lied under oath.

"We believe this is the best opportunity to discovery the whole
truth of GM's decision to secretly redesign the switch,"
Lance Cooper, an attorney for the Meltons, told reporters on
May 12.  "Over the last few months, we've learned a lot that we
didn't know about in the underlying case."

GM spokesman Greg Martin declined to comment beyond referencing a
letter sent to the Meltons by the company's attorney,
Robert Ellis -- robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- a partner at
Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis.  "As an initial matter, General Motors
LLC . . . denies the assertion that GM fraudulently concealed
relevant and critical facts in connection with the Melton matter,"
it read.  "And GM denies it engaged in any improper behavior in
that action."

GM's recalls are designed to fix defects that, by shutting off
engines and preventing air bags from deploying, have been linked
to 13 deaths.

The Meltons allege that the ignition key of their daughter's 2005
Cobalt slipped into the accessory position, shutting off the
engine, as she drove down a Georgia highway.  She lost control
over her vehicle, which skidded into another car, and died from
injuries sustained in the crash.

According to the lawsuit filed on May 12 in Cobb County, Ga.,
State Court, Ray DeGiorgio, the chief engineer of the Cobalt
ignition switches, testified on April 29, 2013, that he didn't
know about any changes made to the Cobalt's ignition switch.  But
documents submitted earlier this year to the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and to congressional officials
showed that he approved such changes in 2006, the suit says.

Ms. DeGiorgio perjured himself and GM concealed the truth about
the ignition-switch change, according to the Meltons, who also
filed a motion for sanctions, including an order prohibiting GM
from challenging their rescission of the settlement.

"Under Georgia law, the court has the authority to sanction a
defendant or any party who violates the court order or presents
false testimony," said Mr. Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper
Firm in Marietta, Ga., working with Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles of Montgomery, Ala., in the case.

The suit also names Thornton Chevrolet Inc., the dealership that
maintained Melton's car before the accident. Thornton Chevrolet,
which was named in the original lawsuit, faced a June 9 trial, but
Cooper told reporters that the Meltons had dismissed that case on
May 9.

Meanwhile, GM has moved to bar the consumer class actions that
comprise most of the 60 lawsuits filed over ignition-switch
defects.  Plaintiffs lawyers have objected.  During a May 2
hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber in the Southern
District of New York ordered the parties to submit a proposed
schedule to brief the issue.


GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Denies Bid to Reinstate Gmail Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stymied plaintiffs' latest
bid to revive a class action accusing Google of violating federal
wiretap law by automatically scanning Gmail messages.

In a crisp order issued May 12, Circuit Judges Edward Leavy,
Consuelo Callahan and Andrew Hurwitz denied plaintiffs' request
for interlocutory review of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's order
denying class certification. Represented by Texas' Wyly-Rommel and
Alabama's Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, plaintiffs in Dunbar v.
Google, 13-2430, claimed that the Mountain View company
intercepted messages sent through its Gmail service to mine users'
personal information.

Judge Koh rejected Google's bid to dismiss the multidistrict
litigation last fall, concluding that the company's privacy
policies were not explicit about the interceptions.  But she
rejected plaintiffs' request to certify vast classes in March,
finding that the litigation would require inquiries into how much
each user knew about Google's practices.

Plaintiffs lawyers asked to file their motion for Ninth Circuit
review under seal, noting that Judge Koh had shielded much of the
litigation from public view.  Google lawyer Michael Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley insisted that the Ninth Circuit
did not need to review the order, citing the litigation's
protracted journey through the courts.

"No fewer than three district court judges have now sifted through
the immense evidentiary record in this case and concluded each
time that certification is inappropriate given the unique facts in
this matter," Mr. Rhodes wrote in opposition to the plaintiffs'
request for an appeal.

The Ninth Circuit has discretion over whether to review class
certification orders, and Rhodes argued that the bar was high.
Review would only be appropriate if the court were to find that
Judge Koh made a "manifest error" that may have tainted the entire
decision, Mr. Rhodes wrote.


GOOGLE INC: Named Plaintiff Wants to Derail No-Poach Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that one of four
named plaintiffs in the high-tech recruitment class action against
Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel wants to derail a $324 million
settlement reached in April, which he claims lets the Silicon
Valley giants off far too easily.

In a May 11 letter to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, Michael Devine
attacks the settlement as "grossly inadequate" and insufficient
"to achieve justice for the class."  Mr. Devine, a former engineer
for Adobe Systems Inc., complains he was not informed of the
discussions leading to the tentative settlement until after an
agreement had been reached.

"I should have been notified of this mediation so that I could
substantively participate and fulfill my duties as class
representative," he wrote in the letter, which he also published
online.

Mr. Devine's accusations put him at odds not only with plaintiffs
lawyers at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph
Saveri Law Firm but also with other class representatives, who
have already distanced themselves from his claims.

Plaintiffs attorneys agreed to settle with Google Inc., Apple
Inc., Adobe and Intel Corp. late last month, in exchange for
dropping claims the companies drove down wages by agreeing not to
recruit each other's employees.  O'Melveny & Myers represents
Apple; Jones Day is counsel to Adobe; Munger Tolles & Olson is
defending Intel; and Keker & Van Nest and Mayer Brown jointly
represent Google.

If approved, the settlement will allow defendants to avoid
potentially billions in damages, a messy trial and a public
rehashing of emails in which executives, including Apple's Steve
Jobs, discussed the so-called no-poach agreements and the need to
keep them quiet.

"Why, with such uniquely compelling evidence in hand, would we
short circuit this case?" Mr. Devine wrote to Judge Koh, who is
presiding over the case.  "Please, Your Honor, allow us our day in
court."

But the three other named plaintiffs made it clear on May 12 that
they are not behind Mr. Devine.

"I believe this is a good settlement that is in the best interest
of the class," Siddharth Hariharan, Mark Fichtner and Daniel
Stover affirmed in separate declarations.

The three also insist they were kept apprised of negotiations.
"My attorneys informed me of the proposed settlement with the
defendants, and I agreed that the proposed settlement was fair,
adequate, and reasonable," their declarations state.  "I
authorized my attorneys to agree to the proposed settlement."

Lieff Cabraser partner Kelly Dermody, colead counsel to the class,
said attorney-client privilege prevented her from discussing how
involved the named plaintiffs were in settlement negotiations.
She also would not discuss the specific terms of the settlement,
which will be submitted to the court by May 22.

"But I will say this is one of the largest employment settlements
ever," Ms. Dermody said, "and that it resulted from a mediation
that was conducted by a very experienced retired federal judge who
supervised the negotiations."

Mr. Devine argues $324 million is a tiny fraction of the alleged
damages, and an even smaller fraction of the defendants' wealth.
He compares the proposed settlement to punishing a shoplifter
caught stealing a $400 iPad with a $40 fine, and allowing the
thief to keep the iPad and walk away with no admission of
wrongdoing.

"There's no justice for the class in that," Mr. Devine wrote, "nor
is there any real deterrent to future wrongdoing."

Mr. Devine did not respond to an emailed interview request.  On
his website, Tech Worker Justice, Mr. Devine says he is seeking
new counsel to represent him as an objector.

Paul Bland, executive director of public-interest firm Public
Justice in Washington, D.C., said it's not that unusual for a
named plaintiff to object to a settlement reached by his or her
counsel.  "The judge's obligation is not so much to poll the main
class representatives, as to determine what's fair and
reasonable," he said.

Zelle Hofmann partner Francis Scarpulla -- fscarpulla@zelle.com --
who specializes in antitrust suits but is not involved in this
case, said he doesn't remember a similar scenario emerging in any
of his cases over the past 45 years.  But, he said, plaintiffs
representing a class of roughly 60,000 engineers and other skilled
workers may be better equipped than most to involve themselves in
the litigation.

"In this case you have very sophisticated named plaintiffs and you
have very sophisticated class members," Mr. Scarpulla said.
"These people are well educated, they have good jobs, they are
successful."

But that doesn't mean Mr. Devine's objections will necessarily
carry weight with Judge Koh, Mr. Scarpulla said.  If she deems the
terms fair, reasonable and adequate, she should approve the
settlement even if it is only a fraction of the $9 billion in
treble damages sought by plaintiffs.

"You don't settle for treble damages," Mr. Scarpulla said.  "You
settle for single damages, and you settle for a percentage of
single damages. . . . The fact that the defendants are wealthy
companies isn't the issue."


GOOGLE INC: Faces Derivative Suits Over No-Poach Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Google
Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. avoided a
potentially messy trial and $9 billion in damages by settling so-
called no-poach litigation late April for $324 million.  But now a
new round of litigation is beginning.  In a series of shareholder
derivative suits, plaintiffs lawyers allege executives of those
tech companies harmed their companies, and in turn their
shareholders, by entering into the illegal pacts.

It's an unusual move -- derivatives generally go hand in hand with
securities fraud cases, not antitrust suits -- and one that faces
several hurdles.  But plaintiffs attorneys say these Silicon
Valley executives are prime targets for derivative actions.

"It's very rare that you have the CEOs of major companies agreeing
in writing to illegal acts, so in that sense it's a pretty amazing
case," said Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy principal Nancy Fineman --
nfineman@cpmlegal.com -- who filed a derivative suit against
Google's power players late last month, followed by one against
Intel's executives on May 8.  Her firm likely will go after
additional Silicon Valley executives as well, once again bringing
up dozens of emails in which those executives discuss the alleged
no-recruit agreements and the need to keep those agreements quiet.

San Diego firm Robbins Arroyo also has filed a series of
shareholder derivative suits against executives and board members
of Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe in Santa Clara County Superior
Court.

The derivative suits target top executives and board members,
including Google's Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt;
Google board member and Stanford University President John
Hennessy; Apple CEO Timothy Cook; Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen; and
Intel's current CEO Brian Krzanich and former CEO Paul Otellini.

"They abused their control, grossly mismanaged, and wasted
corporate assets of Google by entering into these agreements or
consciously turning a blind eye," Cotchett Pitre's complaint
against the Google executives states.  "This exposed the company
to financial, reputational, and litigation risks."

The plaintiffs must overcome the hurdle of demonstrating that the
no-poach pacts did the companies more harm than good, according to
John Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School and a
securities law expert.

"On one hand Google is denied the benefits of a very good employee
at Apple they could have hired," he said.  "On the other hand,
they get the benefits of retaining a very good employee that Apple
might have hired."

Plaintiffs in the derivative suits argue that by agreeing among
themselves to not actively recruit from each other, the executives
cost their companies opportunities to hire top talent that could
help them grow and profit.

"The illegal agreements run contrary to what has made Silicon
Valley so successful: job-hopping," Cotchett Pitre's complaint
against Google states.  And it quotes internal Google emails to
show the company suffered because of the no-hire agreements.

"It will be very challenging to add new initiatives [without]
losing something out the other end," an employee wrote to
defendant Jonathan Rosenberg in January 2007.  "I'm trying to be
creative [with] recruiting from within the [organization] as well
as looking for seasoned people but we need to start poaching from
other companies which is not something that we currently do."

Four months later, after no-poach pacts with eBay Inc. and PayPal
Inc. ended, Google's Arnnon Geshuri wrote to codefendant Eric
Schmidt: "In response to the recent lifting of eBay and PayPal
from the 'do not call list,' staffing is ready to pursue several
hundred leads and candidates from these two companies for various
roles within Google."  There was also the cost of defending and
paying the antitrust settlement, according to Cotchett Pitre, as
well as the cost of defending and settling a U.S. Department of
Justice suit, a blow to Google's reputation, and the cost of
compensation and benefits paid to defendants who breached their
duties to Google.

The recent antitrust settlement helps quantify plaintiffs'
assertion of damages, Cotchett Pitre principal Mark Molumphy --
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com said.  "A company can no longer say, 'Well,
we may have done something wrong, but the company was not
harmed,'" he said.

Robbins Arroyo declined comment on the pending litigation.
Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy denied the allegations of the
derivative suits.

"We believe the plaintiffs are mistaken in this matter and we
intend to defend ourselves," he said in an email.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati partner Boris Feldman --
bbahns@wsgr.com -- is defending Google; O'Melveny & Myers partner
George Riley is defending Apple; and McManis Faulkner partner
William Faulkner -- wfaulkner@mcmanislaw.com -- is defending
Intel.  Adobe hadn't yet entered an appearance as of May 9.

Cotchett Pitre's investigation suggests more suits could be
coming, according to Mr. Molumphy.

"There's a strong possibility that more companies that have not
been publicly named to date were either knowing conspirators or
facilitated these agreements," he said.

Another challenge plaintiffs face with these suits is showing that
the companies' board members, not just their executives, knew of
and were complicit in the alleged antirecruiting conspiracy,
according to Coffee.  The power to sue executives belongs to the
board, unless the plaintiffs can show that board members won't
pursue the allegations because they themselves are implicated.
"There are very substantial hurdles," he said.

Anticipating that hurdle, Cotchett Pitre attorneys contend that
several Google board members, many of whom had multiple roles at
other Silicon Valley tech companies, were instrumental in entering
the illegal no-poach pacts.  Robbins Arroyo attorneys make similar
arguments, noting that Apple board member Bill Campbell "helped
forge the agreement between Apple and Google, and stepped in to
act as an enforcer of the agreement when Google attempted to hire
Apple employees."  In addition to damages, the Robbins Arroyo
attorneys, led by partners Brian Robbins --
brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Kevin Seely --
kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- and associate Michael Nicoud --
mnicoud@robbinsarroyo.com -- ticked off in their complaint a list
of corporate governance changes they want to force on Google,
Apple, Intel and Adobe: The companies should strengthen hiring
oversight, allow shareholders to nominate at least three
candidates for election to the board and strengthen the board's
power, the attorneys wrote.

Robbins Arroyo's suits claim damages worth hundreds of millions of
dollars to the tech companies' reputations, goodwill and standing
in the business community, plus billions in potential liability
and restitution for the antitrust claims.

"The derivative device allows a shareholder to demand that a
company change the way it does business," Mr. Molumphy said, "so
that senior executives [and] board members don't have free rein to
act without taking the company's best interests in mind."


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Kids' In-App Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360,
report that Google Inc. on May 5 asked a federal judge to dismiss
a proposed class action accusing it of enticing kids to spend
money on games without their parents' permission, saying there was
never a contract between the plaintiff's kids and Google.
Plaintiff Ilana Imber-Gluck alleges that many games for Android
phones and tablets are free or just a few dollars to buy, and
require parental permission to buy or download.  But she said
in-app items can be purchased in a 30-minute window after
download, during which no password is required and there is no
prompt for children to ask their parents for permission.

Google, in a motion to dismiss the suit, said Imber-Gluck's
declaratory judgment claim is premised on the proposition that a
minor child enters into a contract with Google when the child
incurs charges to the parent's Google Play account while playing
mobile application games on a parent's mobile device, and that a
parent may disaffirm a contract on behalf of a minor.

"The right to disaffirm the alleged contract (if it did exist)
would belong to the minor personally and not plaintiff.
Plaintiff's suit is brought in her name only; therefore, her claim
for disaffirmance of her minor child's contract fails," the motion
said.

And, Google said even if a parent could disaffirm a minor's
contract, the actions alleged in the complaint do not create a
contract between Google and Ms. Imber-Gluck's children.  She does
not allege that her children have Google Play accounts or have
been billed for any of their alleged purchases, the motion said.
And it said a minor's use of a parent's mobile device and a
parent's Google Play account in a manner that results in charges
made to the parent's Google Play account does not create a
contract between Google and the child.

"Therefore, there is no contract with a minor to be disaffirmed.
Plaintiff's claim for declaratory judgment should be dismissed,"
the motion said.

Google also attacked Ms. Imber-Gluck's claim for unjust enrichment
and restitution because no such independent claim exists under
California law.

"Dismissal is particularly appropriate when, as here, the
plaintiff also is asserting statutory claims that provide for
restitution as a remedy," the motion said.

The company said courts have held that restitution will not be
given when the plaintiff's "remedies at law are adequate."

And the company also targeted the claim for breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing. It said the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing cannot be used to negate express terms of
the parties' contract, and the contract at issue in the suit
provided that Ms. Imber-Gluck was responsible for all activity
relating to her Google account.

"Second, the implied covenant cannot be used to impose additional
duties outside the parties' contract, and the contract here does
not refer to the consumer's 'intent to purchase,'" the motion
said.

As far Ms. Imber-Gluck's claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Google said her
claims are predicated on an alleged affirmative fraudulent
representation made by Google that a gaming application was
"free."

"Notwithstanding that this is the central allegation for
plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims, she fails to identify a single
game that she downloaded that was 'free,'" the motion said.

The game she reference in her complaint, Marvel Run Jump Smash, is
not free, Google said.

Ms. Imber-Gluck is represented by James Patterson of Patterson Law
Group, Todd Carpenter -- todd@carpenterlawyers.com -- of Carpenter
Law Group, Benjamin Sweet and Edwin Kilpela Jr. of Del Sole
Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC and Shannon Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- and
Patrick Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC.

Google is represented by Megan Dixon, Corey W. Roush --
corey.roush@hoganlovells.com -- John R. Robertson --
robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com -- and Logan Michael Breed --
logan.breed@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP and
John E. Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- and James H.
Weingarten -- jweingarten@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP.

The case is Ilana Imber-Gluck v. Google Inc., case number 5:14-cv-
01070, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued for Falsely Marketing Earth's Best Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Belen Ham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02044
(N.D. Cal., May 2, 2014) is brought on behalf of a national class
of consumers, who have purchased food products made by Hain and
branded as "Earth's Best," that were falsely and misleadingly
advertised, marketed, and labeled as "all natural" but which, in
fact, contained one or more synthetic ingredients.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Melville, New York.  Hain advertises, markets,
sells and distributes the All Natural Products throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  mdesario@scalaw.com
                  silg@scalaw.com


HERSHEY COMPANY: Suit by Chocolate Purchasers in U.S. Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
entered judgment closing the case filed by direct and indirect
purchasers of chocolate products against The Hershey Company,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2014.

In 2007, the Competition Bureau of Canada began an inquiry into
alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the sale and
supply of chocolate products sold in Canada between 2002 and 2008
by members of the confectionery industry, including Hershey
Canada, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice also notified the
Company in 2007 that it had opened an inquiry, but has not
requested any information or documents.

Subsequently, 13 civil lawsuits were filed in Canada and 91 civil
lawsuits were filed in the United States against the Company. The
lawsuits were instituted on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products as well as indirect purchasers that purchase
the company's products for use or for resale. Several other
chocolate and confectionery companies were named as defendants in
these lawsuits as they also were the subject of investigations
and/or inquiries by the government entities. The cases sought
recovery for losses suffered as a result of alleged conspiracies
in restraint of trade in connection with the pricing practices of
the defendants.

The Canadian civil cases were settled in 2012. Hershey Canada,
Inc. reached a settlement agreement with the Competition Bureau of
Canada through their Leniency Program with regard to an inquiry
into alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act in the
sale and supply of chocolate products sold in Canada by members of
the confectionery industry. On June 21, 2013, Hershey Canada, Inc.
pleaded guilty to one count of price fixing related to
communications with competitors in Canada in 2007 and paid a fine
of approximately $4.0 million. Hershey Canada, Inc. had promptly
reported the conduct to the Competition Bureau, cooperated fully
with its investigation and did not implement the planned price
increase that was the subject of the 2007 communications.

With regard to the U.S. lawsuits, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation assigned the cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "District
Court"). Plaintiffs sought actual and treble damages against the
Company and other defendants based on an alleged overcharge for
certain, or in some cases all, chocolate products sold in the U.S.
between December 2002 and December 2007, and certain plaintiff
groups alleged damages that extended beyond the alleged conspiracy
period. The lawsuits had been proceeding on different scheduling
tracks for different groups of plaintiffs.

On February 26, 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment
to the Company in the cases brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs that had not sought class certification as well as
those that had been certified as a class. The direct purchaser
plaintiffs must file any notice of appeal by May 19, 2014.

The remaining plaintiff groups -- the putative class plaintiffs
that purchased product indirectly for resale, the putative class
plaintiffs that purchased product indirectly for use, and direct
purchaser Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. -- dismissed their
cases with prejudice, subject to reinstatement if the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit were to reverse the
District Court's summary judgment decision. The District Court
entered judgment closing the case on April 17, 2014.


HULU LLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Video Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Lah, Esq. -- flah@reedsmith.com -- and Lisa B. Kim, Esq.
-- lkim@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP report that on April
28, the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part Hulu's motion for summary judgment over allegations that
it violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing
users' information with comScore and Facebook.  The court granted
the motion for the comScore disclosures but denied the motion for
the Facebook disclosures.

The VPPA restricts video service providers from disclosing
"personally identifiable information" to third parties.  Under the
statute, the term "personally identifiable information" means
"information which identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
service provider."  In this case, the court drew a distinction
between the types of information Hulu was disclosing to comScore
and the types of information it was disclosing to Facebook.  The
court held that, "[t]he comScore disclosures were anonymous
disclosures that hypothetically could have been linked to video
watching.  That is not enough to establish a VPPA violation.  As
to the Facebook disclosures, there are material issues of fact
about whether the disclosure of the video name was tied to an
identified Facebook user such that it was a prohibited disclosure
under the VPPA."

According to declarations from Hulu, Hulu's main source of income
is its advertising revenue.  Advertisers pay Hulu to run its
commercials during breaks, and the amount they pay is tied to how
often an ad is viewed.  Hulu uses analytics providers like
comScore to verify those types of metrics.  In Hulu's case,
comScore performed its analytics on the Hulu site and then
reported its data to Hulu in the "aggregate and generalized" form.
While the court acknowledged that "comScore doubtless collects as
much evidence as it can about what webpages Hulu users visit," the
court held that "there is a VPPA violation only if that tracking
necessarily reveals an identified person and his video watching."
Since there was no evidence that comScore's tracking did that
here, the court granted the motion in Hulu's favor with respect to
the comScore disclosures.

As for the Facebook disclosures, the court's ruling turned on its
determination that "personally identifiable information" was
transmitted from Hulu to Facebook via Facebook's "Like" button.
Each hulu.com watch page has a "Like" button.  During the relevant
time period, the URL of each watch page -- which was sent to
Facebook in order to offer the "Like" button -- included the video
title that the user watched.  And through Hulu's cookies
associated with the "Like" button, the name of the Facebook user
was provided.  Based on these facts, the court found that
plaintiff's VPPA claims for the Facebook disclosures should
survive.

The VPPA was amended last year and state iterations of the law
have recently given rise to litigation.  With statutory damages of
$2,500 per violation, the potential liability under the VPPA can
be catastrophic.  Plaintiffs' counsel has brought VPPA class
actions against various content platforms, including Blockbuster,
Netflix and Redbox, with mixed results.  The cases against
Blockbuster and Netflix each settled.  Redbox's motion to dismiss
was denied by the district court, but on interlocutory appeal the
case was dismissed by the Seventh Circuit.


JANDA LATINO: Fails to Pay Wages & Spread-of-Hours Pay, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Siavichay, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Janda Latino 46 LLC d/b/a Sangria 46, and Ariel
Gonzalez, Case No. 1:14-cv-03158-JGK (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2014)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wage
and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor, and the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
spread-of-hours pay as required by the NYLL.

Janda Latino 46 LLC is a New York corporation that owns and
operates Sangria 46, a restaurant located in New York City.
Sangria 46 prepares and serves Spanish and Latin American cuisine
for its customers.  Ariel Gonzalez is an owner of Sangria 46.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Roberto Concepcion, Jr., Esq.
          BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
                  concepcion@bwp-law.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Certification of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the appeal against the certification of In re
Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation was held in February 2014 and
the parties are awaiting a decision, according to Johnson &
Johnson's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD)  had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the
District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class
certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit granted OCD's petition for interlocutory
review of the class certification ruling. Oral argument on the
appeal was held in February 2014 and the parties are awaiting a
decision. If and when the divestiture of OCD is completed, Johnson
& Johnson would retain any liability that may result from these
cases.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mediation This Month in Settlement Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation for the appeal against the settlement of a securities
suit against Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey has been scheduled for May 2014,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly. Plaintiff sought to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his
alleged economic losses. In December 2011, a motion by Johnson &
Johnson to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider part of the December 2011
ruling. In May 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
in part. Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case, and in July 2013, filed for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. In November 2013,
the Court approved the settlement. Three parties that had objected
to the settlement have appealed the Court's approval orders.
Mediation for the appeal has been scheduled for May 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit in B.C. Over McNeil Infants Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing is currently not scheduled in a Civil
Claim filed against Johnson & Johnson in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Canada over one or more various McNeil infants'
or children's over-the-counter medicines that were allegedly not
safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good
Manufacturing Practices, according to the company's May 2, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing is currently not scheduled.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bares Updates on CIO Investigations, Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. provided on its May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014, updates on lawsuits relating to losses in
the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm's Chief
Investment Office.

A consolidated purported class action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and two shareholder derivative
actions that were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District"),
relating to losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by
the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO"), have been dismissed in
their entirety. Shareholder derivative actions filed in New York
state court have also been dismissed, except for one action that
is currently stayed. A consolidated shareholder purported class
action filed in the Southern District has been dismissed in part,
and the Firm and other defendants will answer the remaining
allegations in the complaint. The Firm has also responded to
shareholder demands for information and continues to cooperate
with ongoing government investigations relating to CIO.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks to Dismiss Litigation by CDS Purchasers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. moved to dismiss a consolidated complaint
filed on behalf of purchasers and sellers of credit default swaps
(CDS), according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Separately, the Firm is a defendant in a number of purported class
actions (all consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York) filed on behalf of purchasers
and sellers of CDS. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in January 2014, alleging that the defendant investment
banks, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA,
collectively prevented new entrants into the CDS market, in order
to artificially inflate the defendant banks' revenues in violation
of federal antitrust laws. Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Suit Over Foreign Exchange Rates Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action complaint was filed against foreign
exchange dealers, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., for alleged
violations of federal and state antitrust laws and unjust
enrichment, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Since November 2013, a number of class actions have been filed in
the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New
York against a number of foreign exchange dealers, including the
Firm, for alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws
and unjust enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate
foreign exchange rates reported on the WM/Reuters service. A
consolidated class action complaint was filed in March 2014.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of merchants have filed notices of appeal to the
settlement reached in the interchange litigation, of which
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a defendant, according to the company's
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints relating to interchange in several federal
courts. The complaints alleged that Visa and MasterCard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of
antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing. All cases were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York for pretrial
proceedings.

The parties have entered into an agreement to settle those cases,
for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of
which the Firm's share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal
to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period of
eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end
of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for
modifications to each credit card network's rules, including those
that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. The rule
modifications became effective in January 2013. In January 2014,
the Court issued the Class Settlement Order and Final Judgment
granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants
have filed notices of appeal. Certain merchants that opted out of
the class settlement have filed actions against Visa and
MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks.
Defendants moved to dismiss those opt-out cases in March 2014.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Moves to Dismiss Amended Complaints Over LIBOR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated suit over alleged manipulation of the
U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR rates have moved
to dismiss amended complaints, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in
various United States District Courts in which plaintiffs make
varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or
later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated
the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR rates by
submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs
allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other
financial instruments whose values are impacted by changes in U.S.
dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR or Euroyen TIBOR and assert a variety of
claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related purported class actions have been
consolidated in a Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial purposes
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. In March 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims, including
dismissal with prejudice of the antitrust and unjust enrichment
claims. One of the class action plaintiffs who asserted only
antitrust claims appealed the dismissal of its action, which the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. In March 2014, the plaintiff filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the
United States seeking review of the Second Circuit's dismissal of
its appeal. In September 2013, certain plaintiffs filed amended
complaints and others sought leave to amend their complaints to
add additional allegations. Defendants have moved to dismiss the
amended complaints and have opposed the requests to amend. Those
motions remain pending. As additional complaints continue to be
filed, the Firm will seek to have them transferred to the
Multidistrict Litigation.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Move to Junk Suit Over LIBOR, TIBOR Partly Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a suit
filed on behalf of plaintiffs who purchased and sold Euroyen TIBOR
futures contracts, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Firm has also been named as a defendant in a separate
purported class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs who
purchased and sold Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts. The action
alleges manipulation of Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR. In March
2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss, including dismissal of the antitrust claims
and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants have filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's decision not to dismiss certain
Commodity Exchange Act claims.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Approves Settlement with BLMIS Trustee
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlements entered by JPMorgan Chase & Co. with the Bernard
L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC Trustee and the class action
plaintiffs have been approved by the court, according to
JPMorgan's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Additionally, the Firm and certain subsidiaries entered into
settlements with the court-appointed trustee for BLMIS (the
"Trustee") and with plaintiffs representing a class of former
BLMIS customers who lost all or a portion of their principal
investments with BLMIS. As part of these settlements, the Firm and
the bank agreed to pay the Trustee $325 million, and agreed to pay
the class action plaintiffs $218 million, as well as attorneys'
fees. The settlements with the Trustee and the class action
plaintiffs have been approved by the court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Feeder Funds Investors Appeal Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit brought against JPMorgan Chase & Co. by
investors in certain feeder funds have petitioned the court for a
rehearing of an appeal against the dismissal of their complaint,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in
certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a
motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims
against the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending
purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these
complaints largely track those raised by the Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC Trustee. The Court dismissed these
complaints and plaintiffs appealed. In September 2013, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision. The plaintiffs have petitioned the
entire Court for a rehearing of the appeal and the Firm has filed
its answer to that petition.


JPMORGAN CHASE: BLMIS Investors File Collective Suit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who (with a few exceptions) did not suffer losses on
their principal investments with Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC commenced in New Jersey a purported class action,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Two actions have been filed, in the United States District Courts
for the District of New Jersey and the Middle District of Florida,
by investors who (with a few exceptions) did not suffer losses on
their principal investments with Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC. The action commenced in New Jersey is a purported
class action while the Florida action was brought by a group of
investors. These plaintiffs generally allege violations of the
federal securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes
and multiple common law claims.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Consolidated Suit by MF Global Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The actions filed against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC by
purchasers of MF Global's publicly traded securities have been
consolidated before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Firm has responded to inquiries from the CFTC relating to the
Firm's banking and other business relationships with MF Global,
including as a depository for MF Global's customer segregated
accounts.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several
defendants in a number of purported class actions filed by
purchasers of MF Global's publicly traded securities asserting
violations of federal securities laws and alleging that the
offering documents contained materially false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding MF Global. The actions have
been consolidated before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS-Related Insurer Claims Stand at $73 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently pending and tolled investor and monoline
insurer claims involving mortgage-backed securities with an
original principal balance of approximately $73 billion, of which
$66 billion involves JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (JPMC), Bear
Stearns or Washington Mutual as issuer and $7 billion involves
JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (together, "JPMC"), Bear Stearns and
affiliates (together, "Bear Stearns") and Washington Mutual
affiliates (together, "Washington Mutual") have been named as
defendants in a number of cases in their various roles in
offerings of mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). These cases
include purported class action suits on behalf of MBS purchasers,
actions by individual MBS purchasers and actions by monoline
insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and
interest for particular tranches of MBS offerings. Following the
settlements referred to under "Repurchase Litigation" and
"Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation", there are
currently pending and tolled investor and monoline insurer claims
involving MBS with an original principal balance of approximately
$73 billion, of which $66 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or
Washington Mutual as issuer and $7 billion involves JPMC, Bear
Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter. The Firm and
certain of its current and former officers and Board members have
also been sued in shareholder derivative actions relating to the
Firm's MBS activities, and trustees have asserted or have
threatened to assert claims that loans in securitization trusts
should be repurchased.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Two Suits Over MBS Issue, Underwriting
------------------------------------------------------------
Two cases are pending against JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (JPMC)
and Bear Stearns in the Southern District of New York in over
mortgage-backed securities that they issued or underwritten,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

The Firm is a defendant in three purported class actions brought
against JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (JPMC) and Bear Stearns as
mortgage-backed securities issuers (and, in some cases, also as
underwriters of their own MBS offerings) in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New
York. The Firm has settled one of these purported class actions,
pending in the Eastern District of New York, and the plaintiffs
have moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. Motions to
dismiss have largely been denied in the remaining two cases
pending in the Southern District of New York, which are in various
stages of litigation.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Certification Sought in Suit Over Foreclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs suing JPMorgan Chase & Co. in relation to its mortgage
foreclosure procedures have moved for class certification,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The Attorney General of Massachusetts filed an action against the
Firm, other servicers and a mortgage recording company, asserting
claims for various alleged wrongdoings relating to mortgage
assignments and use of the industry's electronic mortgage
registry. The court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the action, which remains pending.
The Firm is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. The
plaintiffs have moved for class certification.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Over Delayed Mortgage Documents
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ugolik and David McAfee, writing for Law360, report that a
class of residential property owners filed a class action against
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA in New York federal court on May 6 claiming
the bank has a pattern of failing to timely file mortgage
satisfactions, encumbering thousands of properties and blocking
the closure of deals.

The named plaintiff, Tina Bellino, alleges that JPMorgan took more
than 40 days to record the satisfaction of the mortgage on her
property in Tarrytown, New York, after she sold the property and
paid it off.  The complaint, which was filed on May 2 but entered
into the court system on May 6, alleges this is a regular practice
and that proof of mortgage satisfaction is often filed months, if
not years, after it is due.  Such complicates the work of title
insurers and threatens to derail New York's property transfer
system, according to the complaint.

"This is no mere procedural peccadillo," the complaint said.
"[T]here is a real possibility that a large loss by a title
company as a result of the widespread failure of banks to timely
present mortgage satisfactions may disrupt the entire system for
transferring residential property in New York state."

The failure to present a timely mortgage satisfaction is also
frustrating to property owners who need a clean title in order to
complete a property sale, Ms. Bellino claims.  This behavior isn't
limited to JPMorgan; it's allegedly common for lenders to take far
more than the 30-day limit to file proof of mortgage satisfaction.
To address that, the New York legislature amended the state's
property laws in 2005, imposing penalties on banks that don't
record mortgage satisfactions in a timely manner.  If the
documentation isn't made within 30 days, banks must pay a $500
fee. The penalty rises to $1,000 after 60 days and $1,500 after 90
days, according to the complaint.

But these fees have not made lenders more expedient, Ms. Bellino
claims.

"Plaintiff is not alone.  In fact, based on a review of county
records, defendant appears to have failed to timely file mortgage
satisfactions in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
instances," the complaint said.

Ms. Bellino alleges there are thousands of property owners who
have similarly been delayed official relief from their paid-off
loans thanks to banks' failure to timely file the proper
documentation.

The suit comes about three months after another group of New York
property owners filed a similar action against JPMorgan.

In February, plaintiff Amy Schwartz alleged that JPMorgan had
violated two New York statutes by failing to present to the proper
county clerk a satisfaction of mortgage when she had paid the
entire principle and interest due on the loan for her property,
which is located in Pennsylvania.

That action remains pending in Pennsylvania federal court.

Ms. Bellino is represented by Todd S. Garber, D. Greg Blankinship,
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson and Shin Y. Hahn of Finkelstein Blankenship
Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP.

The case is Tina Bellino et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, case
number 14-cv-3139, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


K&K INTERIORS: Accused of Violating FLSA's OT Wage Provisions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sand, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
v. K&K Interiors Inc. D/B/A KCMW Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01617-K
(N.D. Tex., May 2, 2014) seeks to remedy the Defendant's alleged
violations of the wage and overtime wage provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

K&K Interiors Inc., doing business as KCMW Inc., is a corporation
headquartered in Sandusky, Ohio.  K&K is a wholesale supplier
selling to retailers, who in turn sell to the consumer market.
K&K supplies home decor, offering retailers glassware, floral,
ceramics, candles and others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Jeter, Esq.
          CHESTER & JETER LLP
          6301 Gaston Avenue, Suite 730
          Dallas, TX 75214
          Telephone: (214) 382-0759
          Facsimile: (214) 593-3663
          E-mail: jeter@chester-law.com


LINCOLN WOOD: Removed "Schussel" Class Suit to South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Schussel v. Lincoln Wood
Products Inc., Case No. 2014-CP-10-1628, was removed from the
Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01788-SB to the proceeding.

Martin D. Schussel asserts negligence and breach of warranties,
and seeks damages in connection with alleged defective windows
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed and sold
by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq.
          Harper Lonnie Todd, Esq.
          JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY LAW FIRM
          PO Box 806
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 849-8400
          Facsimile: (843) 849-8406
          E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com
                  htodd@lucey-law.com

               - and -

          John T. Chakeris, Esq.
          CHAKERIS LAW FIRM
          231 Calhoun Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 853-5678
          Facsimile: (843) 853-5677
          E-mail: john@chakerislawfirm.com

               - and -

          Phillip W. Segui, Jr., Esq.
          SEGUI LAW FIRM
          864 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite A
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 884-1865
          E-mail: psegui@seguilawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William Gordon Lyles, III, Esq.
          Allen Leland DuPre, Esq.
          LYLES AND LYLES
          PO Box 773
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 577-7730
          Facsimile: (843) 577-7172
          E-mail: wgl@lylesfirm.com
                  ald@lylesfirm.com


LINNCO ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of LINN Energy, LLC to dismiss a consolidated
securities suit is currently pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to LinnCo,
LLC's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

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 11 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.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Judge Approves Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Connolly, writing for WYDaily.com, reports that a second
class-action lawsuit filed against Lumber Liquidators by customers
of the Toano-based company has been dismissed.

Attorneys from both the customers and Lumber Liquidators agreed to
the dismissal in a document filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on April 29.  Judge Gerald Bruce
Lee approved the dismissal on April 30.  Judge Lee's approval of
the dismissal came about three months after the other class-action
lawsuit filed by customers was dropped in January.

Both lawsuits from customers sought damages for allegations of
products sold with elevated levels of formaldehyde and for
allegations of products imported from the habitat of an endangered
animal, a violation of U.S. law.  The April 30 dismissal was with
prejudice, meaning the matter cannot be refiled in the future by
the customers who originally filed the suit.

"We strongly denied the claims asserted and have maintained from
the outset that they were factually and legally flawed," said
John Feld, a spokesperson for Lumber Liquidators.  "After
aggressively defending the case, it was dismissed with prejudice
for an immaterial amount.  While we firmly believe that the claims
lacked merit and we would ultimately have prevailed in the
litigation, in our estimation, the favorable financial terms
warranted this outcome at this time."

Court records did not indicate a reason for the lawsuit's
dismissal.

The dismissed suit sought a jury trial over 10 claims connected to
the importation of wood products from China.  The suit was one of
three filed in the wake of a September search of the company's
Toano headquarters and a retail store in Henrico County by federal
agents.  The third suit, filed by shareholders of the company
claiming damages due to the same allegations brought forth by the
customers, remains active.

A trial date for the remaining lawsuit has not yet been set.


MADISON SQUARE: Moves for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following the completion of discovery in an antitrust lawsuit that
names The Madison Square Garden Company, all defendants filed
motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaints
in their entirety, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the National Hockey League and certain NHL member clubs,
regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors. The
complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily assert
that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered
into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide
certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the
television and online distribution of live hockey games, violate
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek
injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of
the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest. On July 27, 2012, the Company and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints (which
have been consolidated for procedural purposes). On December 5,
2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order largely denying the
motion to dismiss. On April 8, 2014, following the completion of
discovery, all defendants filed motions for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the complaints in their entirety.


MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Accused of Placing Illegal Robo-Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Finklea, Individually and on Behalf of the Class v.
Monitronics International, Inc., Alliance Security, Inc., and Home
Security Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00153 (S.D. Tex.,
May 2, 2014) accuses the Defendants of jointly violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing illegal calls to
persons, who did not give their express consent, on their cellular
telephones using an artificial/prerecorded voice or an automatic
telephone dialing system.

Monitronics International, Inc., is a Texas corporation
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Monitronics is a security alarm
monitoring company.  Alliance Security, Inc. is a foreign
corporation headquartered in Delaware.  Alliance transacts
business in the state of Texas and is an alarm-systems dealer.
Home Security Solutions, Inc. is a foreign corporation
headquartered in Cranston, Rhode Island.  HSS transacts business
in the state of Texas and is an alarm-systems dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Wolff, III, Esq.
          Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
          KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
          701 Main Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-3796
          Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
          E-mail: jwolff@kcwlaw.com
                  cjones@kcwlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com
                  scott@bohrerlaw.com


NEUROSCIENCE INC: Accused of Job Discrimination in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Ailts Campeau, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Neuroscience, Inc., and
Pharmasan Labs, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00324-slc (W.D. Wis.,
May 2, 2014) alleges job discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Newville, Esq.
          MADIA LAW LLC
          345 Union Plaza
          333 Washington Avenue North
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 349-2743
          Facsimile: (612) 235-3357
          E-mail: joshuanewville@madialaw.com


NEW YORK JETS: Former Cheerleader Files Minimum Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mihoces, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that a former
New York Jets cheerleader, alleging pay she received amounted to
less than minimum wage and that her out-of-pocket expenses
included $45 weekly for hair straightening required by the team,
has filed a class action lawsuit against the team.

The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey on behalf of a plaintiff
identified as Krystal C, whose identity was withheld to avoid
harassment, as it is by NFL teams.  She says she was paid $150 per
game -- but not for others hours of required work -- as a member
of the New York Jets Flight Crew during the 2012 season.  The suit
is similar to others filed by cheerleaders against the Oakland
Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals and Buffalo Bills.

"I think that it's an important issue.  It bespeaks a culture that
does not value the work that the women are doing for the team,"
said Patricia Pierce, a Philadelphia attorney who represents the
Krystal C.  "Not to say that they should be paid the same amount
as the athletes, but at least they are entitled to minimum wage if
not more."

The suit says Krystal C was paid $150 for each game at which she
performed, subject to withholding tax.  But it says she was not
paid for practices (three hours per evening, three days a week),
training camp and other appearances, hours required to practice
routines at home and other duties.

Ms. Pierce said that based on the actual hours she worked the pay
for a season of $1,800 amounted to $3.77 per hour.  The attorney
said the minimum wage at the time in New Jersey was $7.25 per
hour.

"They also had expenses they were required to put out of pocket,
like for travel to stadium, travel to practice, hairstyling," said
Ms. Pierce.  "She had wavy hair and they . . . made her straighten
it so that she had the 'Jets' look."'

The suit alleges: "Plaintiff had naturally curly hair, but the
Jets required her to wear her hair straight which in turn required
her to see a hair stylists each at an approximate cost of $45 per
styling."

The claim was brought in the Superior Court of New Jersey/Bergen
County.  It seeks a jury trial and asks for "compensatory and all
other damages available under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law."

"My client thought long and hard about whether or not to bring an
action after she saw the Raiderettes lawsuit because there was a
lot about the experience she really valued and still does value,"
Ms. Pierce said.  "It was an exciting experience.  But on the
other hand, you shouldn't have to basically pay to do a job."

Among the other allegations in the suit:

-- The Jets required cheerleaders to maintain their uniforms:
"Each member worked approximately one hour per week on uniform
maintenance, for which they were not compensated."

-- They were required to work in production of a "Flight Crew
Calendar," the sale of calendars and calendar signings.

-- At each rehearsal, one Flight Crew member was required to give
a "motivational" gift to each of the other members and the
director of the Flight Crew.  The suit alleges those gifts ranged
in total price from $30-$200.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-3251, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Och-Ziff securities
between February 9, 2012 and April 25, 2014, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Och-Ziff securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 7, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Och-Ziff is a publicly owned investment management company that
was founded in 1994 and is based New York, New York with
additional offices in London, United Kingdom; Hong Kong; Tokyo,
Japan; Bangalore, India; and Beijing, China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company violated relevant anti-bribery
laws by accepting an investment from the Libyan Investment
Authority, a sovereign wealth fund; (ii) the Company loaned $234
million to help finance two ventures in the Democratic Republic of
Congo in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (iii)
beginning in 2011, the Company received subpoenas from the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States
Department of Justice in connection with the transactions
mentioned above; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 3, 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice joined a widening investigation of
banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds, including Och-Ziff,
relating to the possible violation of anti-bribery laws in their
dealings with Libya's government-run investment fund.  The article
also stated that the criminal investigation by the DOJ was
proceeding alongside a civil probe by the SEC that began in 2011.

On the news, Och-Ziff stock fell $0.87, or 6.7%, to close at
$12.08 on heavy volume.

On April 27, 2014, the WSJ published an article providing details
about the Och-Ziff investments in Africa under investigation by
the SEC and DOJ.  The article stated that the probe centered on
two loans totaling $234 million, to companies controlled by a
controversial mining executive, which helped finance two ventures
in the Democratic Republic of Congo involving properties that were
the subject of ownership disputes.

On this news, shares in Och-Ziff fell $1.28, or almost 10%, on
heavy trading volume, to close at $11.65 on April 28, 2014.

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


OLD NATIONAL: Mediation Ordered in Suit Related to Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Vanderburgh Circuit Court ordered parties in a suit filed
against Old National Bancorp challenging its checking account
practices to enter into mediation and informed the parties that
the "Court will be denying the motion for summary judgment upon
receiving the report of the mediator," according to the company's
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging the company's checking
account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft
fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar
to other class action complaints filed against other financial
institutions in recent years and settled for substantial amounts.
On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a
First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and
amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages and other
relief, including restitution. On June 13, 2012, Old National
filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was
subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old
National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or
more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of
limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a
result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card
and ATM transactions from highest to lowest." Old National sought
an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class certification on
April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. Old National does
not believe there is a cause of action under Indiana law to
support the plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, Old
National moved for summary judgment. On September 16, 2013, a
hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and on September
27, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to mediation and informed
the parties that "Court will be denying the motion for summary
judgment upon receiving the report of the mediator."


PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Delivery Sales Tax
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a
St. Louis law firm has filed a class action suit in Madison County
Circuit Court against Papa John's Pizza, claiming the chain
illegally charged 16 cents sales tax on each delivery charge of
$2.39.

"In Illinois, sales tax may only be imposed on the total sales
price of taxable tangible property.  The sales price is the total
amount paid for tangible goods, including services that are part
of the sale;

"However, when a customer has the option to either pick up the
goods or have the goods delivered by the seller, a seller may not
legally charge sales tax on a separate charge for deliver when the
cost of delivering the merchandise," the suit claims.

The stores have charged delivery fees for the past few years.  In
addition, a prompt used in the chain's telephone system urges
customers to tip the delivery men and women.

The named plaintiff is Zachary Tucker, a resident of Madison
County.  He is suing on behalf of himself and all other Illinois
customers who have been charged sales taxes on delivery fees.
Typically, once the case is decided or settled, the customers may
get their money back by sending in a request.  The attorneys may
be awarded one-third of the total award or settlement amount.

The suit claims that the billing practice is required by the Papa
John's International, Inc. the firm that sells franchises to local
operators.

"The billing practice for charging sales tax on delivery fees was
orchestrated and mandated by Papa John's and is followed by most,
if not all, locations in Illinois at the direction of Papa
John's," the suit alleges.

The suit claims Mr. Tucker chose to have his order delivered and
was charged $2.39 and was improperly charged a sales tax of 6.85
percent on the feel, resulting in a 16-cent tax.

There are several questions of law that must be addressed before
the case is certified as a class action. One such question is
whether members of the class are so numerous that their
"individual joinder" is impossible.

The suit is asking for damages for negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract/breach of duty of good faith
and fair dealing and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The suit is asking for an injunction against the chain, preventing
it from charging the tax, compensatory damages, plus interest,
restitution, actual damages and attorneys fees and costs.  The
suit was filed by Carey, Danis & Lowe of St. Louis and Wagner,
Vaughan & McLaughlin of Tampa, Fla.


PEPSICO INC: "Cortina" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cortina v. Pepsico, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Oakland).  The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
02023-DMR to the proceeding.

Pepsico, Inc., is a North Carolina company headquartered in
Purchase, New York.  Pepsi sells soft drinks, including Pepsi,
Diet Pepsi, and Pepsi One throughout the state of California.

Thamar Santisteban Cortina alleges that Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and
Pepsi One contain an amount of 4-methylimidazole, a carcinogen,
sufficient to expose California consumers to substantial health
risks.  She contends that Pepsi, however, deceptively omits that
the Pepsi beverages contain these amounts of 4-MeI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (408) 247-4553
          E-mail: ccreekmore@scalaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          The Palm Canyon Building
          2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
          1970 Broadway, 9th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  scole@scalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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


PEPSICO INC: "Riva" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Riva, et al. v. Pepsico,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00340, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The Clerk of the Northern District of California
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02020-JCS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that certain products manufactured by Pepsi
contain 4-methylimidazole in violation of California's Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.  4-MEI is an
impurity generated during the manufacture of caramel colors III
and IV used in some of Pepsi's soft drinks.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242-5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com

               - and -

          Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          Facsimile: (408) 247-4553
          E-mail: ccreekmore@scalaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          The Palm Canyon Building
          2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
          1970 Broadway, 9th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  scole@scalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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


PHILLIP MORRIS: Reveals Tobacco-Related Lawsuits as of May 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. provided updates on the number of
tobacco-related cases pending against its and/or its subsidiaries
or indemnitees as of May 1, 2014, May 1, 2013 and May 1, 2012, in
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014:

Type of Case   Number of Cases  Number of Cases  Number of Cases
               Pending as of    Pending as of    Pending as of
               May 1, 2014      May 1, 2013      May 1, 2012

Individual
Smoking and
Health Cases      65                71              76

Smoking and
  Health
  Class Actions    11                11              10

Health Care
  Cost Recovery
  Actions          15                15              10

Lights
  Class Actions     1                 2               2

Individual
  Lights Cases      2                 1               9

Public
  Civil Actions     2                 4               3


PHILIP MORRIS: Challenge Against Brazilian Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' appeal in the class action by The Smoker Health
Defense Association in Brazil seeking a ruling that the plaintiff
did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, is still pending,
according to Philip Morris International Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Below is the verdict and post-trial development in the class
action filed by The Smoker Health Defense Association in Brazil
filed in February 2004.

The Verdict: The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable
without hearing evidence. The court did not assess actual damages,
which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size
of the class was not defined in the ruling.

Post-trial Developments: In April 2004, the court clarified its
ruling, awarding "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $450)
per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate of
1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not
award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.
Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011,
the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff has appealed. In
addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff did not
have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Bares Number of Smoking, Health Suits as of May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. provided updates on the number of
smoking and health cases pending against it, its subsidiaries or
indemnitees as of May 1, 2014 as detailed in the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Smoking and Health Litigations against the company primarily
allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or
on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms
of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and
injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases
include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect,
lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory
negligence, and statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2014, there were a number of smoking and health cases
pending against the company, the company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees, as follows:

     (i) 65 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(25), Brazil (24), Canada (2), Chile (6), Costa Rica (2), Greece
(1), Italy (3), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared
with 71 such cases on May 1, 2013, and 76 cases on May 1, 2012;
and

    (ii) 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on May 1, 2013 and 10 such cases on May 1, 2012.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and
their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and their
relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial
court limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo
only. In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo
issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because
the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment. In
April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the
trial court dismissed the case on the merits. In January 2014, the
Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's appeal and
affirmed the trial court decision. Plaintiff may appeal.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the
present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a
judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion
of the trial proceedings.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the
company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an
individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages
for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain
smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the
present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a
judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion
of the trial proceedings.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"),
severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the
use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In September
2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not
anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco
products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products. No activity in this case is anticipated while
plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan.

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date,
the company, its subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees have
not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this
case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class
action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, its
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco
products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive
on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action.

In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and
the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members
of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco
products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory
diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents
and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed.
Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds
that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the
Saskatchewan class action.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, its
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.
Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take
any action in this case in the near future.


PHILIP MORRIS: Sept. Hearing on Plaintiffs' Appeal in "El-Roy"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral hearing on plaintiffs' appeal against the denial of class
certification in El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et
al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel has been scheduled
for September 2014, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Lights Cases brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a
class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2014, the following lights cases were pending against
the company's subsidiaries or indemnitees:

     (i) 1 case brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in
Israel, compared with 2 such cases on May 1, 2013 and May 1, 2012,
respectively; and

    (ii) 2 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Chile (1) and
Italy (1), compared with 1 such case on May 1, 2013, and 9 such
cases on May 1, 2012.

In the class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa,
Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the company's subsidiary and the
company's indemnitees (PM USA and the company's former importer)
are defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action
claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor
"lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full
flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price
of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class
member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008
regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing on
class certification was completed in March 2011. In November 2012,
the court denied class certification and dismissed the individual
claims. Plaintiffs have appealed, and an oral hearing has been
scheduled for September 2014.


REGLAS PAINTING: Avoids Employer Obligations, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Fredy Crespin Fuentes, 1316 Bonsal St., Apt. 213, Baltimore,
MD 21224; Mauricio Martin Amador, 1077 Wilmington Avenue,
Baltimore, MD 21223; and Jesus Humberto Reyes, 3241 E. Baltimore
Street, Baltimore, MD 21224, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and all who have filed or will file
consent to suit forms in this case v. Reglas Painting Co., Inc.,
4128 North Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21222; and Athanasios Reglas,
4128 North Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21222, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01469-JFM (D. Md., May 2, 2014) stems from the Defendants' alleged
failure to properly pay all wages due and owing, and the
Defendants' related efforts to unlawfully avoid and evade employer
obligations and costs.

Reglas is a Maryland corporation.  Reglas conducts business, and
provides services in the state of Maryland.  Reglas has held
several procurement contracts with the state of Maryland for which
the Maryland's Prevailing Wage Law applies.  Athanasios Reglas is
a manager or supervisor, who has exerted sufficient control over
significant aspects of the employment policies of Reglas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis J. Collins, Esq.
          Christopher R. Ryon, Esq.
          KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A.
          201 N. Charles Street, 10th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201 4102
          Telephone: (410) 244-1010
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8001
          E-mail: fjcollins@kahnsmith.com
                  ryon@kahnsmith.com


RICON CORPORATION: Removed "Tirado" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Raul F. Tirado v. Ricon Corp., et
al., Case No. BC537042, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03424-R-SS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of labor laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
          Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq.
          BALTODANO AND BALTODANO LLP
          1411 Marsh Street, Suite 102
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322-3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
          E-mail: efb@bbemploymentlaw.com
                  hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP
          5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-9900
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9910
          E-mail: fschmidt@bollaw.com
                  phaines@bollaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marytza J. Reyes, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: mreyes@reedsmith.com


SOUTH FLORIDA QUALITY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Pedro Carcache, Adolfo Lira and other similarly-situated
individuals v. South Florida Quality Welding, Inc., and Erwin H.
Perez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-21592-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
May 2, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the laws of the United States.

South Florida Quality Welding, Inc. is a Florida corporation
headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs
worked for the Defendants.  Erwin H. Perez is director/owner of
Quality Welding.  The Defendants provide welding services to the
construction industry and to general contractors in Florida and
other states, too.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SUPER MEX: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raffi Kevorkian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Super Mex Restaurants, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-00700-CJC-AN (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT AND COMPANY APLC
          1010 N. Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


TRANS WORLD: Seeks Approval of Pilots' Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
pilots for defunct Trans World Airlines have asked a federal judge
to approve a $53 million settlement of litigation with their union
over seniority rights lost when bankrupt TWA was taken over by
American Airlines in 2001.

Counsel for the plaintiffs in Brady v. Air Line Pilots Association
described the deal in court documents as the largest known
settlement of its kind in a lawsuit against a labor union by its
members.  The suit, filed in 2002 on behalf of 2,300 former TWA
pilots, alleged their collective bargaining unit, Air Line Pilots
Association International (ALPA), failed to safeguard their
seniority in violation of its duty of fair representation.
ALPA allegedly was seeking, without the knowledge of the TWA
pilots, to become the bargaining unit for American's 11,000
pilots, who until then were represented by a different union,
Allied Pilots Association (APA).

On Nov. 8, 2001, American and APA executed a seniority integration
agreement, known as Supplement CC, which provided that the
majority of TWA pilots would be placed at the end of the combined
seniority list -- resulting in, with few exceptions, TWA pilots
being junior to American pilots, the suit alleged.

The pilots brought claims under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A.
151-188, a federal statute regulating interstate commerce.
Following a trial on liability in July 2011, a jury found in favor
of the class.  The settlement was reached as the case was headed
for a damages trial.

The parties participated in two mediation sessions in 2012 with
James Rosenbaum, a former U.S. District Court judge from Minnesota
who is now with JAMS, but to no avail.

After a 14-hour session with another JAMS mediator, David
Geronemus, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding in
November 2013.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas on Feb. 21 gave preliminary
approval to the settlement, under which class members will get
awards ranging from $200 to $32,000 according to a formula that
measures each member's economic loss.

ALPA and its carrier, Kitty Hawk Insurance, will each pay half,
according to papers filed by class counsel Lisa Rodriguez --
ljrodriguez@schnader.com -- of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
in Cherry Hill, whose cocounsel is Green Jacobson of Clayton, Mo.

The $53 million total includes $15.9 million in fees and $1.2
million in costs.  The fee petition said class counsel billed $9.5
million at rates of $525 to $650 for partners, $285 to $450 for
associates and $75 to $180 for paralegal work, yielding a lodestar
multiplier of 1.66.  That, counsel said, is low under the
circumstances.

Ms. Rodriguez said she is not familiar with any larger award in a
class suit alleging violations of a union's duty to represent its
membership.  The claim is novel because the former TWA pilots came
under different representation after they joined American and so
brought suit against their former union, she noted.

ALPA's lead counsel, Jay Cohen -- jaycohen@paulweiss.com -- of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York, did not
return a call about the settlement.

Local N.J. counsel John Connell --
jconnell@archerlaw.com -- of Archer & Greiner in Haddonfield
declined to comment.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Faces Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kim Kozlowski, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
Dearborn resident who says he was wrongly denied in-state tuition
at the University of Michigan filed a class-action lawsuit against
the university on May 7, alleging discrimination.

Hussein Berry, 20, immigrated to the U.S. in 2006, moved to
Dearborn and graduated from Woodworth Middle School and Fordson
High School.  Though he and his older brother and parents have
been U.S. citizens since 2012, Mr. Berry says he was denied in-
state tuition at U-M Dearborn.

According to the suit, filed in federal court, the denial was
issued because he did not meet criteria for U-M's in-state
residency.

"It is plaintiff's understanding that he was denied residency
status due to his father's international business travel, his
mother's temporary visitation to Lebanon to care for an ill
relative, and his mother's visitation to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj
pilgrimage, an unparalleled religious duty for the Islamic faith,"
the lawsuit says.  "Plaintiff's mother was overseas for
approximately one month for her Hajj pilgrimage and three months
while caring for an ill relative.  However, neither of these
activities impact plaintiff or his family's residency in
Michigan."

U-M spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham said on May 7 the university has
not yet been served in this case.

"[B]ut we are confident the university's in-state tuition
guidelines are appropriate and constitutional," Ms. Cunningham
said.

The lawsuit comes after U-M changed its policy last summer,
allowing for in-state tuition for undocumented and military
students.

At U-M Dearborn, where Mr. Berry attends, in-state tuition is
about $10,854 per year for residents.  However, tuition is more
than double for nonresidents, at $23,364 per year.  According to
the suit, Mr. Berry enrolled at U-M Dearborn in the fall of 2013,
but was classified as a nonresident.  Prior to attending U-M, he
attended Henry Ford Community College for two years.

"Since there is a great disparity between the tuition cost for
in-state and out-of-state tuition, it is vitally important for
students to qualify for in-state tuition when warranted," the
lawsuit says.  "There is no logical reason to demonstrate that
plaintiff has not established Michigan as his home."

The lawsuit was filed as a class-action suit because Mr. Berry is
only one of many in the local community who have immigrated to the
United States and whose family maintains some out-of-state
connection.  It is unclear how many people will be in the class
action.


VIBRAM USA: Agrees to Settle FiveFingers Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt McCue, writing for Runner's World, reports that Vibram USA,
the company that makes FiveFingers running shoes, has agreed to
settle a lawsuit that alleged the company made false and
unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of its glove-like
footwear.  According to the court filings, Vibram settled to put
the matter to rest and avoid any additional legal expenses.
"Vibram expressly denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing
alleged in the Actions, and neither admits nor concedes any actual
or potential fault, wrongdoing or liability," read the court
brief.

Valerie Bezdek brought the class action suit against Vibram in
March 2012.  She filed her complaint in Massachusetts, the state
where Vibram's U.S. headquarters are located.  Ms. Bezdek alleged
that Vibram deceived consumers by advertising that the footwear
could reduce foot injuries and strengthen foot muscles, without
basing those assertions on any scientific merit.  "The gist of her
claim is that Vibram illegally obtained an economic windfall from
her because it was only by making false health claims that Vibram
induced consumers to buy FiveFingers shoes, and to pay more for
them than they would have otherwise," Harvard Law School
professor, John C. P. Goldberg, told Runner's World at the time of
the original filing. Subsequent class action suits were filed
against Vibram in California and Illinois, and those were absorbed
into Ms. Bezdek's case.

The settlement consists of two kinds of relief.  The first is
refunds to class members who submit valid and completed claim
forms.  Vibram will deposit $3.75 million into an escrow account
and those funds will be distributed to those valid class members
who purchased a pair of Vibram FiveFingers between March 21, 2009
and the date of the first dissemination of summary settlement
notice or class notice, whichever is earlier.  FiveFingers will
award up to a maximum of $94 per pair, though the agreement
acknowledges that based on similar settlements it is reasonable
for class members to expect to receive between $20 and $50 per
pair.

Class members can submit a claim for up to two pairs of shoes
without any kind of receipt or proof of purchase. (However,
FiveFingers can request a verification of purchase should they
decide to do so in an effort to prevent against possible fraud.)
Anyone who seeks to recover payment on more than two pairs of
footwear must submit both a valid claim form and proof of
purchase.

If any portion of the $3.75 million remains after the claim
payments have been distributed and all administrative and legal
costs have been paid, the balance will be donated to the American
Heart Association for research on the health benefits of running.

For the second part of the settlement, Vibram has agreed to
discontinue to make any claims that FiveFingers footwear is
effective in strengthening muscles or reducing injury in its
marketing and advertising campaigns, unless the company discovers
new scientific evidence that proves it.

Vibram is required to establish a website,
www.fivefingerssettlement.com to inform class members of the terms
of the agreement.  The company is also required to post banner ads
with the settlement information on a number of websites, including
runnersworld.com and Facebook.com, in order to deliver
approximately 300,000,000 impressions.

Per the court agreement, the attorneys for the class members can
receive up to 25% of the $3.75 million settlement, or $937,500.
Vibram must pay up to an additional $70,000 of reasonable out-of-
pocket expenses incurred by the plaintiff's counsel in relation to
this case.

It was never disclosed if Ms. Bezdek, who filed her suit roughly
one year after purchasing her pair of Vibram Bikilas, tried to
first seek a refund for her FiveFingers prior to initiating the
lawsuit.

Was suing a logical or over-the-top reaction for a product that
didn't perform as advertised? Will the suit help to better police
a corporation or does it leave consumers not responsible for
applying common sense to a marketing boast that sounded too good
to be true? Janine Pollack, the lead attorney for the plantiffs,
did not respond to questions about Bezdek's motivation to bring
the lawsuit.  Christopher Morrison, the lead attorney for the
defendant, declined to comment.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing's Fibro Fight Spreading
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daneman, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that
after years of defending itself against asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC supposedly has
gathered ample evidence of frequent questionable conduct by trial
lawyers.  Now a growing number of companies want access to that
information as well.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in North Carolina gave health
insurance giant Aetna Inc. access to a variety of sealed documents
in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the Palmyra company.  Waiting in
the wings, also hoping to get access to that information, are Ford
Motor Co., Honeywell International, Volkswagen Group of America
Inc. and Crane Co. -- all of which have filed similar motions
seeking access.

Opposing them are the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants -- one of the groups representing creditors in
Garlock's bankruptcy -- and the Shein Law Center Ltd., a
Philadelphia personal injury law firm specializing in asbestos
litigation.

At the heart of the fight is an array of documentation from
Garlock that federal Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges cited in
January when he ruled in the company's favor over various law
firms seeking $1 billion or so from Garlock. In the ruling, Hodges
determined Garlock at most would probably have to pay $125 million
to settle any current and future lawsuits claiming asbestos
Garlock once used in gasket making resulted in cases of
mesothelioma, a rare cancer.

In his ruling, Judge Hodges pointed to evidence that plaintiffs'
lawyers in the past had withheld evidence as they sought greater
payouts from Garlock and that the legal system had been "infected
by the manipulation of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their
lawyers."

According to Judge Hodges' ruling, Garlock has been a victim of
"effort by some plaintiffs and their lawyers to withhold evidence
of exposure to other asbestos products and to delay filing claims
against bankrupt defendants' asbestos trusts until after obtaining
recoveries from Garlock (and other viable defendants)."

In 15 cases that Garlock settled where it received full discovery,
Garlock showed that exposure evidence "was withheld in each and
every one of them," Judge Hodges wrote. "It appears certain that
more extensive discovery would show more extensive abuse."

The sealed information came during closed court hearings, and the
statements and exhibits can be accessed only with the court's
approval.

The efforts of Ford, Honeywell and the others wanting access to
that information are largely on hold as Legal Newsline, a Chicago-
based legal publication, appeals a previous ruling by Hodges
denying it access to the material. That appeal -- currently before
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
-- could determine whether the sealed materials are open to the
public, as the various companies argue, or not.

Garlock is suing a variety of personal injury law firms, citing
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
claiming they concealed evidence that their clients were exposed
to asbestos products made by other companies -- a move that would
have strengthened their own cases against Garlock. Among those
being sued are Shein Law Center, Waters & Kraus LLP and Belluck &
Fox LLP.

                       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: Call for Fibro Probe in Older Naval Ships
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that the
organisation representing naval ratings has demanded a thorough
examination of all the Naval Service's older ships to ensure they
are asbestos-free.

PDFORRA (Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative
Association) also expressed concern about the manner in which
asbestos was discovered on the LE Orla as she was undergoing
routine maintenance at Verolme dockyard.

Following the discovery, her sister ship, LE Ciara, which was also
brought into service in 1985, was also locked down. The ship was
also undergoing routine maintenance, but in the naval service's
own dockyard at Haulbowline.

PDFORRA general secretary Gerry Rooney said he would have thought
ships of that age were likely to have contained some asbestos. "A
risk assessment should have been carried out first before the work
began."

A worker carrying out maintenance on the LE Orla's engine room
raised the alarm after spotting what he believed was asbestos.
External consultants were alerted and samples taken proved
positive.

Mr Rooney said he was concerned that no risk assessment was
carried out prior to the maintenance crews starting work,
especially as many of them would have been wearing only minimum
protective clothing, while others possibly had no protective
clothing at all.

"Our primary concern is with the individuals who were on the ships
when this maintenance was carried out. The individuals need to be
told of the (potential) dangers they face and need to get the
necessary medical checks," Mr Rooney said.

It is believed at least eight workers may have been at risk and Mr
Rooney said PDFORRA was liaising with Naval Service chiefs on the
issue.

The Naval Service is unlikely to have been concerned about the
presence of asbestos as, 14 years ago, private consultants swept
its ships and gave an all-clear. Officers are carrying out an
investigation into that report presented in 2000.

In the meantime, a spokesman for the Naval Service said it was
following Health & Safety Authority (HSA) procedures and was
awaiting assessments to be completed by the asbestos control
experts.  It is not clear when the assessments will be completed.

Lung disease link

White asbestos, also known as chrysotile, is by far the most
common form of asbestos.  It is a soft, fibrous silicate mineral
which accounts for around 95% of asbestos used in Europe and the
US.  White asbestos is considered to be far less dangerous than
its blue and brown-named cousins.

However, it is considered by the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) to becarcinogenic and has been associated with
lung disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Rules for Defendant in Fibro Product Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that after a five-year summary judgment battle in a federal
asbestos Multidistrict Litigation court, Judge Eduardo Robreno has
granted a defendant's move for summary judgment based on the bare
metal defense and poor product identification.

Judge Robreno granted defendant Viad Corporation's summary
judgment in a March 13 order.

Plaintiff Theresa Schott's lawsuit was transferred to MDL asbestos
docket 875 in March 2009 from the Central District of California.
By November 2009, the legal battle on summary judgment began.
Schott alleges her husband, Robert Schott, was exposed to asbestos
while serving in the U.S. Navy as a fireman and machinist mate
aboard the USS Moore from 1959 to 1966.

Robert Schott later died of mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of
his work with gaskets, packing and insulation.  Schott contends
Griscom-Russell Company (GRC) manufactured an evaporator used on
the ship that contained the asbestos insulation and gaskets that
allegedly caused her husband developed mesothelioma.

However, Viad, the alleged successor-in-interest of GRC, moved for
summary judgment on the grounds that there is insufficient product
identification evidence in order to support causation. It says it
is entitled to the bare metal defense and claims it is not the
corporate successor to GRC.

Then in November 2009, the MDL court referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Thomas Rueter, who then issued a report and
recommendation in July 2011 stating that summary judgment should
be granted. He ruled that there was neither direct nor indirect
evidence proving Robert Schott worked with or was exposed to any
original or replacement asbestos containing parts on the
evaporator that were manufactured or supplied by GRC.

The claimant objected the report and recommendation, claiming it
failed to credit a plaintiff expert who allegedly shared facts
referring to the defendant's product identification and causation
grounds.

Judge Robreno examined Rueter's report and recommendation and
Schott's objection to make a decision on summary judgment.

Regarding this particular case, the parties allege that California
law applies. However, Judge Robreno found that maritime law is
proper because the claim meets both the locality and connection
tests.

According to the locality test, the tort must have occurred on
navigable waters or have been caused by a vessel on navigable
waters.  The connection test requires that an incident could
potentially disrupt maritime commerce and that the injury shares a
substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.

"It is undisputed that Mr. Schott's alleged exposure to GRC
product(s) occurred during his service in the Navy while aboard a
ship," Judge Robreno wrote. "Therefore, this exposure was during
sea-based work."

Judge Robreno notes that Rueter analyzed the instant case under
California law rather than maritime law, but the result did not
change.  Therefore, under maritime law, the "bare metal" defense
is recognized. It determines that a manufacturer is not liable for
harms caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute and
has no duty to warn about hazards associated with those third-
party products.

In other words, "bare metal" products relate to those that contain
or were encapsulated in asbestos-containing products made by a
third party. The arguments raised from this type of exposure refer
to it as the "bare metal defense" in litigation.

Viad argues that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence
sufficient to establish causation and that it has no duty to warn
and cannot be liable for injuries arising from third-party
products.

However, Schott argues that her husband removed insulation and
gaskets from the GRC evaporator "many times," which allegedly
resulted in breathable asbestos dust.  The plaintiff provides
testimony supporting the claims by the decedent and co-worker
Richard Withers. Captain William Lowell also gave an opinion
supporting the claimant's argument, saying that it was "more
likely than not that Mr. Schott was exposed to asbestos materials"
while maintaining the GRC evaporator and that the asbestos-
containing replacement parts would likely have been supplied by
GRC as well.

Taking both sides into consideration, Judge Robreno wrote that
while there is evidence supporting the allegation that the
decedent would have been exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets,
packing and insulation, there is no evidence, however, from anyone
with personal knowledge that the claimant was exposed to products
manufactured or supplied by GRC.

During testimony, Lowell does suggest that it was likely the
replacement products came from GRC, but both Rueter and Robreno
agreed that opinion is speculative.

"Therefore, even when construing the evidence in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, no reasonable jury could conclude from the
evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos from original or
replacement gaskets, insulation or packing manufactured or
supplied by defendant such that it was a 'substantial factor; in
the development of his illness, because any such finding would be
impermissibly conjectural," Judge Robreno wrote.

Lastly, Schott objected Rueter's summary judgment approval as to
her design defect allegations, but Judge Robreno supported Rueter
saying that under maritime law, Viad is not liable for products
the decedent may have been exposed to but weren't manufactured by
the defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Friendly Law "Disgrace", Daily Press Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Olivo, writing for The Daily Press, reported that it will be
little noted, perhaps, that with a stroke of the pen, an infamy
has been committed against thousands of Wisconsin veterans and
industrial workers.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker wielded the pen, and the infamy is
known as Assembly Bill 19.  That bill makes it far more difficult
for the victims of diseases caused by asbestos to seek
compensation for injuries caused by asbestos. It was passed by the
Republican-dominated state legislature, and signed into law by
Walker, the latest in a series of corporation-friendly Walker
Administration measures such as laws removing local control on
frac-sand mining, anti-union measures, and tax breaks for large
companies.

What is particularly galling about this bill is that it protects
companies who knowingly exposed thousands of people to an
inherently dangerous substance for decades after they knew the
health risks involved in the use of asbestos.  In Wisconsin, this
means thousands of industrial workers and thousands of veterans
have had their right to seek redress for injuries knowingly
inflicted by manufacturers for years made much more difficult.

Veterans especially have suffered from asbestos exposure. They
make up 30 percent of the victims of the asbestos-specific form of
lung cancer mesothelioma, but at the same time, they make up only
eight percent of the general population.

There has seldom been a bill that has been so thoroughly opposed
by veteran representatives. This bill was opposed by the American
Legion, The Veterans of Foreign War and the Order of the Purple
Heart, all of whom lobbied against this sellout to an industry
that has been shown to be culpable in then deaths of thousands of
Americans for decades.

This bill can be called nothing less than cynical, odious and a
blot on the record of the State of Wisconsin.  It would appear,
that as in the past, the dollars of wealthy corporate contributors
count for more than the voices of 100,000 veterans as represented
by their organizations in fighting against this bill.

Such bills have popped up in other states. It would appear that
the asbestos industry, which has consistently lost in the courts,
is trying to immunize themselves from paying for their past
misdeeds by going to the states piecemeal and seeking an
extrajudicial remedy to the thousands of continuing lawsuits they
face from victims and survivors of asbestos-related illnesses.

According to the Wisconsin Asbestos Victim's Network, there is a
very human face that was ignored by Governor Walker in signing the
bill into law, presumably under the color of creating a more
business-friendly climate in the state.

"It's shameful Gov. Walker signed AB 19 into law, ignoring the
voices of veteran's families." said Ruth Grosz, widow of an
asbestos victim who was a veteran and worker. "My husband suffered
horribly from mesothelioma. He did everything right in life, from
serving his country in the Marines to working at the original PPG
plant to volunteering for Habitat for Humanity. Why would
politicians make it harder for people, like my husband, to receive
the justice and fair compensation they rightly deserve?"

It is unquestionable that asbestos manufacturers and the
corporations that used their products knew that asbestos was a
harmful product. Scientific evidence has existed since the 1920s
that workers exposed to asbestos dust developed serious, chronic
and eventually fatal respiratory ailments.

Yet until recently, that evidence was covered up, ignored or pooh-
poohed in a manner that is reminiscent of the tobacco
manufacturers mantra that cigarettes don't cause cancer. As a
matter of justice and equity, those who push a toxic product,
knowing it is dangerous, should be held accountable for their
misdeeds. They should not get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card from
the legislature and governor who were elected to protect the
people of the state.

Those thousands who will inevitably suffer from asbestosis and
mesothelioma and whom will now find it much more difficult to
receive the compensation they deserve, and their families who must
also suffer are now rightfully pointing the finger of shame at
those who voted for this disgraceful legislation. Given the
governor's signing of the bill into law in a private ceremony, it
is something we must live with, at least for now. But this
contemptible act against the state's veterans and working people
should not be allowed to stand, nor should it be forgotten.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Appeal for Help in Catching Fly-tippers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter Express and Echo reported that the council in East Devon
District, United Kingdom, is asking for help from the public about
two serious fly tipping incidents in the Exmouth area.  The first
was dumped asbestos and the other was multiple bags of dog mess
that were left by a dog waste bin.

Both cases are quite unusual and officers can take enforcement
action against the culprits if they can be identified. Fixed
penalty notices are one option, but council officers can also
prosecute if it feels that the fixed penalty is an inadequate
remedy.

The first instance was the dumping of a large quantity of asbestos
cement material in a car park near the Exmouth recycling centre.
This happened at lunchtime on March 20. The vehicle was identified
as a large grey/blue Vauxhall van but officers would like more
details of this van as only a partial registration number was
noted.

The material is likely to have come from an old shed roof,
probably taken down in the Exmouth or Budleigh area. The material
in its present state presents no risk to the public, and it will
soon be removed by the landowner, but disposing of asbestos
containing material in this way can attract severe penalties.
Officers would like to hear from anyone who can link the recent
demolition of a shed with the large grey/blue Vauxhall van.

The second case was one of several incidents around Exmouth
involving the disposal of large pet food bags full of dog mess.
This is seen as anti-social behaviour which could cause harm to
council staff handling the material. The feed bags were all of the
"Field and Trial" brand which is commonly used by people with
working dogs, kennels or other large numbers of dogs.

Eight bags were left beside a dog bin on the Imperial Recreation
Ground during the evening of March 27. This area is heavily used
by walkers in the evening and officers would like to hear from
anyone who witnessed bags being unloaded and left near a dog bin.

Again a vehicle and/or person description would be very helpful.
EDDC waste contractors have reported having to pick up similar
quantities of bags left elsewhere in Exmouth, specifically in
Marine Way and Chatham Close. Officers would be very pleased to
hear from any member of the public who may be able to provide
information regarding these incidents.

Fly tipping is taken very seriously by the council and courts, and
enforcement action will be taken against identified offenders.
There are plenty of facilities available for both members of the
public and commercial operations to lawfully and responsibly
dispose of any waste. Wherever possible the cost of clearing up
fly tips will be recovered from the offender as well as any fines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Article Blasts Gov. Walker Over Bill
-----------------------------------------------------
Craig Peachy, writing for The Cap Times, reported that Assembly
Bill 19, which creates more hurdles for victims of asbestos
poisoning seeking justice and fair compensation from asbestos
corporations, was signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker. This law
will shield asbestos corporations that knowingly poisoned
Wisconsin workers and veterans from liability. Wisconsin
Republicans have chosen to side with asbestos corporations instead
of the victims and their families.

This legislation is so offensive that when Walker signed it into
law, he did it in private. For Wisconsin asbestos victims, the
impact will be felt immediately as their access to justice is
delayed and for some even denied.

Workers, many of whom are veterans, were poisoned on the job by
asbestos corporations, which knew for decades the deadly effects
of asbestos. In fact, there are some startling facts in Wisconsin
regarding workers, veterans and asbestos.

It has been well publicized that veterans account for 30 percent
of mesothelioma-related deaths but only 8 percent of the
population. And 62 percent of asbestos cases filed in the past
five years in Wisconsin were by veterans. What has not been well
publicized is the fact that after they returned home to civilian
life, many veterans worked in rail yards, factories, ship yards,
plants, mills and construction sites. It was at many of these
workplaces where workers and veterans were poisoned by asbestos.

Because of its well-known use as a fire-retardant and heat
insulator, asbestos was used to insulate factories, schools,
homes, and ships, and to make automobile brake and clutch parts,
roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, cement, textiles and
hundreds of other products. It is easy to see how workers in the
manufacturing, railroad, sheet metal or construction industries
are particularly at risk of asbestos exposure.

A study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine
showed the harmful effects asbestos has had on sheet metal workers
and uncovered some disturbing statistics. The study showed that 21
percent of sheet metal workers tested positive for pleural
scarring, a prime indicator for an asbestos-related disease.
Workers who were on the job for at least 40 years saw the number
jump to 33 percent. In Wisconsin, almost 400 sheet metal workers
have had positive results on an asbestos test.

AB 19 will create more hurdles and limit the compensation for
victims of asbestos poisoning and their families. When asbestos
trusts were created to help compensate victims, they were
appallingly underfunded. Asbestos corporations filed for
bankruptcy, creating these trusts to avoid additional legal
accountability for killing thousands of Americans. AB 19 forces
victims to file against these underfunded trusts, which will
result in pennies on the dollar in compensation. This process will
also serve to delay the legal process, and many victims of
asbestos poisoning will die before they see their day in court.

It's shameful that Walker sided with corporations that poisoned
Wisconsin workers and veterans. Our workers and veterans who have
given so much to our state and country deserve to be treated with
dignity and respect.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concern in Fortune Minerals
--------------------------------------------------
Jesse Todd, writing for The StarPhoenix, reported that in a recent
newspaper advertisement, Fortune Minerals claimed asbestos will
not be present at its metals processing plant near Langham and
Dalmeny, in Saskatchewan, Canada.

However, it is much more complicated than that.

Fortune has admitted that actinolite is present in the ore samples
that will be processed at its plant, and that approximately two
per cent of the waste from the processing of the metals will
contain actinolite, which equals 3,160 tonnes of it being dumped
on-site each year.

Actinolite is a one of the six recognized types of asbestos. It
can either be fibrous or non-fibrous. The fibrous type is
classified as asbestos and is the one that kills people. The non-
fibrous type is not classified as asbestos and is therefore
considered to not be as harmful.

Fortune Minerals seems to be claiming that the nonfibrous type
will be at its site. However, it is very difficult to determine
the difference between the two, which can exist immediately next
to each other in the same deposit.

The provincial government's Occupational Health and Safety
Regulations recognize that all forms of actinolite are dangerous.
They state: "'Asbestos' means the fibrous form of crocidolite,
amosite, chrysotile, anthophyllite, actinolite, tremolite or a
mixture containing any of those minerals."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Award Upheld for Fibro Supplier
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California appellate court
has affirmed an award of summary judgment for a company that
allegedly supplied asbestos for use in joint compound products,
agreeing with the trial court that a portion of the plaintiff's
evidence could not be authenticated.

In the April 3 opinion, the California Third District Court of
Appeal said that even if it found that the trial court had erred
on other grounds, the unauthenticated evidence would still allow
the summary judgment award to stand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Snub Causation Testimony Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shot down a
bid by Lincoln Electric Co. and Hobart Brothers Co. asking the
justices to reconcile a pair of rulings the companies claim
created inconsistency with the court's standard for acceptance of
expert causation testimony in asbestos product liability suits.

The justices refused to assume extraordinary jurisdiction to
address whether the Superior Court had ran afoul of binding legal
precedent when it decided to hold an en banc rehearing following a
September ruling by a three-judge panel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renters Demand Answers to Fibro Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Sullivan, writing for The Washington Post, reported that
residents of one of Alexandria's largest affordable apartment
complexes grilled federal regulators, local authorities and their
landlord over the discovery of asbestos during renovations of
their homes, angrily asking why it took three months for officials
to halt the work.

Owners of the 530-unit Hunting Point on the Potomac, formerly
Hunting Towers, received a rare stop-work order from the
Environmental Protection Agency after inspectors discovered
asbestos in the floors, doors and windows. The agency also found
that workers were not taking legally required precautions.

During four visits to the 63-year-old complex since the beginning
of the year, EPA officials found crumbling asbestos in apartments,
halls and trash areas where windows and floor tiles are being
replaced. No notice of the danger was posted, the EPA said, and
workers did not seal the area to protect residents. No certified
supervisor was on the job, nor were workers certified in the task
of removing hazardous materials. The EPA has ordered testing for
airborne asbestos fibers.

The stop-work order is an unusual action by the EPA; only five a
year are typically issued, and they rarely involve occupied
apartment buildings, an EPA spokeswoman said.

The crowd of more than 100 that gathered at Alexandria's Lee
Center to hear the EPA's explanations was angry and mistrustful of
the buildings' owners and contractors. Some responses offered by
officials drew scoffs and catcalls.

"All the units should be sampled," said resident Crystal Kilby,
who is a nurse. "I live there. I don't want my health
compromised."

"The thing I find most disconcerting is it was necessary for a
resident to bring this to your attention," Doug Meckes said. "I'd
like to know where the town of Alexandria was."

"This isn't even negligence -- this is recklessness," said
Stephanie Ackerman, who said she has been threatened with eviction
for refusing to let contractors in her apartment to replace
windows. Several parents testified that they worried about
children who have crawled on or touched contaminated surfaces.

Steve Boyack, senior vice president of the Laramar Group, the
part-owner that manages the complex, said the company had been
unaware that the buildings had asbestos in them until the EPA's
stop-work notice arrived. Laramar immediately complied, he said,
and will follow EPA regulations to resume work.

Residents have been complaining about the renovations, possible
asbestos and lead-paint contamination and rising rents for the
past year, ever since the two eight-story buildings were sold by
the Virginia Department of Transportation for $81 million to
Laramar and the investment fund Lubert-Adler. The residents say
that the city failed to take their complaints seriously.

"Why, instead of responding to citizens and saving several months
of exposure to asbestos and neurotoxins . . . why did you wait for
the federal government to come in and do your job?" Chuck Benagh
asked.

City inspectors who checked the plumbing work at Hunting Point
last summer found no evidence of asbestos because there was no
insulation around the pipes, said John Catlett, the city's
director of code enforcement.

The city did no other inspections because it lacks the authority,
spokesman Craig Fifer said. He added that the city referred
residents to state and federal authorities that can perform the
inspections.

Other tenant complaints, lodged with the city's landlord-tenant
office, focused on a lack of notice given by workers who sought
access to apartments. Tenants' attempts to get the city to stop
the construction failed; city officials said their hands were tied
because of Virginia laws that favor property owners.

The tenants also have been fighting rent increases, which they
fear will force them out of the high-rises and into a rental
market where more than 12,000 affordable apartments have
disappeared since 2000. Some, upset that they now must pay
utilities in addition to rent, opted for the insecurity of month-
to-month agreements rather than signing a long-term lease with a
higher rent. They accused Laramar of trying to force them out.

"I realize that the owner has a right to improve the property and
raise rents," said Maurice Barboza, a tenant since 1995 whose rent
for an efficiency apartment rose from $795 to $1,096 per month.
"My problem is that these buildings are not yet in market-rate
condition. They are substandard in the middle of major
renovations."

Boyack acknowledged that there have been rent increases but said
the 100 to 150 people most affected had not had increases since
2002, when VDOT froze rents in consideration of the disruption
caused by the construction of the adjacent Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Sixty-two percent of tenants renewed their leases in 2013, Boyack
said.

"The intent is not to turn this into a new building," Boyack said
in an interview. "It's more geared toward making it .?.?. a
decent, safe and affordable place to live."  Residents did not
believe him.

"This is a sham!" some shouted from the audience.  "One lie after
another!"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Bill Limiting Venue in Fibro Cases Passed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
bill that would limit where lawsuits involving latent diseases can
be brought narrowly passed a Louisiana State House of
Representatives committee.

HB482, sponsored by Rob Shadoin, R-Ruston, would limit the ability
of plaintiffs to bring latent disease cases, such as asbestos-
related mesothelioma, to the jurisdiction where the alleged
exposure took place.

The bill narrowly passed the the House Committee on Civil Law and
Procedure in a 7-5 vote. Similar legislation that was introduced
in the 2012 session failed to make it out of the same committee.
The bill would not limit the ability of claimants to bring suit,
but would ensure that the exposure took place in the judicial
district where the lawsuit is brought and in the case of exposure
in multiple parishes a venue could be agreed upon that would be
convenient for both parties.

Melissa Landry, executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse
Watch, said the bill would limit what she calls "venue shopping"
in which plaintiffs' attorneys seek out courts that may be
perceived to be more likely to grant awards in such cases.

"I think in (passing this) they acknowledge and recognize that
venue shopping Louisiana is a problem that needs to be fixed," she
said.  Landry said the bill is more of a compromise than the 2012
legislation and is likely to see more support.

"We did make some changes in the specifics of this bill to address
some of the concerns that had been expressed by plaintiffs
attorneys. So we are trying to work with everyone to ensure that
this is a fair bill that will achieve the goal to prevent venue
shopping in Louisiana, but to do so in a way that will not take
away the rights of any plaintiffs and certainly to recover for
legitimate damages," she said.

The bill was scheduled for full debate on the House floor on
April 9.

Plaintiffs' attorneys from plaintiffs' law firms specializing in
asbestos litigation, including New orleans-based Landry & Swarr
and Harrel & Nowak of New Orleans and the Baton Rouge office's of
Baron & Budd, did not respond to requests for comment on this
story.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: First Step Set for Maryland Buildings Demolition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Barlow, writing for Ocean City Gazette, reported that
asbestos abatement is expected to begin on the first of two
buildings at the historic Christian Brothers Retreat at 31st
Street and Central Avenue, in Ocean City, Maryland.

The rambling beachfront buildings, more than a century old, are
slated for demolition, of which the asbestos removal is the first
step.

Duplexes are planned for the site, which long served as a summer
retreat for members of the De La Salle Christian Brothers,
District of Eastern North America.

Philip DeRita, a spokesman for Christian Brothers, said he was
not sure how long that would take, but the demolition would
start immediately after, and at that time, the asbestos abatement
would begin on the second building.

Last year, the Ocean City Planning Board approved a subdivision
plan for four duplexes to be built on the property. Christian
Brothers representatives said at the time that they could no
longer afford the upkeep on the buildings.

Earlier this year, Ocean City Council approved two ordinances that
were part of the conditions for Planning Board approval of the
duplex plan.

The first vacates a portion of the beachfront property between
from 31st Street and 30th Street occupied by the Christian
Brothers Retreat. The second deeds a 20-foot-wide paved alley on
the site to the city for public use.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NT Man Admits Role in Federal Crime
----------------------------------------------------
The Tonawanda News reported that a man in North Tonawanda, New
York, has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a
false statement under the Clean Air Act, U.S. Attorney William J.
Hochul Jr. announced.

Brian Scott, 33, was an air sampling technician who was employed
by JMD Environmental at the time of the crime, Assistant U.S.
Attorney Aaron J. Mango, who is handling the case, said. Scott was
certified to conduct asbestos project monitoring and air sampling
duties by the New York State Department of Health.

Scott's codefendants, Ernest Johnson and Rai Johnson, of Johnson
Contracting, conducted asbestos monitoring at six buildings at the
Kensington Towers Apartment Complex in Buffalo between June 2009
and January 2010.

During the course of the project, Rai Johnson created daily
progress logs that are required under the Clean Air Act. In his
log for building A-1, Rai Johnson incorrectly wrote that all floor
tiles containing asbestos had been removed.

Then, on July 7, 2009, Scott conducted a visual inspection of the
building for the floor tile and issued a satisfactory visual
inspection "when in truth the defendant was aware that all
asbestos-containing floor tiles had not been removed," a statement
from Hochul's office reads.

Scott faces a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a fine of
$125,000. He will be sentenced at 12:30 p.m. on Aug. 8.

Scott is the third defendant to plead guilty as part of the
asbestos abatement project at Kensington Towers. In addition to
Rai and Ernest Johnson, JMD project monitors Chris Coseglia, Henry
Hawkins and Evan Harnden have been charged.

Charges have also been levied against current and former public
officials who were responsible for certifying the project's
compliance with laws and regulations including Donald
Grzebielucha, William Manuszewski and Theodore Lehmann.

The remaining defendants will go to trial before U.S. District
Court Judge Richard J. Arcara on May 13.

The plea is the culmination of an investigation led by special
agents of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, special agents
of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and
investigators of the state Department of Environmental
Conservation police.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Is Aussie Community's Hidden Danger
----------------------------------------------------------
Louis Nelson, writing for Latrobe Valley Express, reported that
sometimes Erica Meall feels like her world is surrounded by
asbestos.

Her back shed is made from it.  Her two builder sons are
"constantly" exposed to it at work.  Her father was tragically
lost to asbestosis about 20 years ago.

Now living in her mother's home in Yallourn North, Australia,
where a suspicious pile of cement-like corrugated sheets has laid
for as long as she can remember, Ms Meall's patience for the
carcinogenic material is wearing thin.

"My older boys used to climb over it when they were young, and it
wasn't until they grew up and got into the building industry that
we realised what it was," she said.

Ms Meall now has to constantly watch her three year-old son Toby
whenever he's playing in the backyard to ensure he stays clear of
the harmful sheets.

"I don't want to lose another family member to it," she said,
having recently exhausted her options for its removal.

Last year, Ms Meall purchased a $30 asbestos removal kit from
Latrobe City Council, and with the help of her sons attempted to
wrap the sheets in builders plastic, before taking it to the local
landfill.

However she said the submission was refused, as it was not wrapped
properly enough to be classified as 'air tight', as required by
council asbestos submission criteria.

"I was told however, that the sheets in my back yard were not
dangerous unless disturbed," she said.

"If this is the case, why do they have to be wrapped air tight
before the tip will accept them and the whole tip closed if they
are found to be incorrectly wrapped?"

Ms Meall moved on, and sought a professional quote which put
removal costs well beyond her affordability, at $700.

"My son will be too old to care about playing in the backyard by
the time I can afford to have it removed."

"And the really worrying part for me is my two older children who
are working with this stuff all the time -- I really don't want to
see anyone else affected by this."

However it was the recent arrival of a new resident on her street,
who found they had the same corrugated sheeting in their own
backyard, which drove Ms Meall to go public with her concerns.

"It's been enough of a worry on my mind already -- by now it's
become just sheer frustration -- I've gone through all the right
avenues to try and get rid of it properly, and I'm helpless," she
said.

"If you move asbestos in the wrong way, like just dragging it
around the yard, it's not just going to stay in your yard, it will
go into the neighbour's yard -- asbestos fibres are fairly light
and will travel a fair way," she said.

"This stuff is everywhere, so it needs to be seen as a whole
community problem -- not just a problem for one person in their
own back yard."

Ms Meall has called for Latrobe City Council to act more
proactively on asbestos management.

"It is understandable to be afraid of the material but (council),
as the leader of our community and local government body, need to
do a whole lot more," she said.

"It is not a solution to make it too expensive or impossible to
remove and leave it laying in backyards indefinitely."

Latrobe City Council general manager economic sustainability
Allison Jones confirmed residents who presented at council-run
transfer stations or landfills with incorrectly wrapped asbestos
would be refused entry, however she said it would not require the
facility to be closed.

"We do understand residents' concerns when it comes to the removal
of asbestos but unfortunately, Council cannot assist residents who
have large quantities of asbestos material to dispose of; or do
not have friends or family to assist with a 'do it yourself'
removal with use of a kit," Ms Jones said.

"We always advise residents with larger amounts of asbestos to
contact a licensed asbestos removalist."

Defending its proactive approach to asbestos management, Ms Jones
said Latrobe was the first Australian municipality to offer
residents a home removal kit.

"The kit has now been taken up (by)  Worksafe, the Environment
Protection Authority and the Department of Health, and was
relaunched in March 2014 as the 'Domestic Asbestos Removal Kit',"
she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Burnham Building Poses Low Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burnham-On-Sea reported that concerned residents living near a
building site in Burnham-On-Sea have been reassured that the
discovery of asbestos there "does not provide an immediate risk to
health." Homeowners besides Persimmon Homes' 48-home Mulberry Park
building development near Lawrence Close have raised a number of
concerns after seeing work halted in part of the site when the
asbestos was found.

The area has been fenced off, as pictured here, and a large blue
tarpauline has been placed over the contaminated soil. However,
Carl Haley, Managing Director for Persimmon Homes Severn Valley,
told Burnham-On-Sea.com: "During part of the site clearance at
Mulberry Park our contractor alerted Persimmon Homes to asbestos
roof sheeting lying on the ground that had been previously
illegally deposited." "This low risk asbestos does not provide an
immediate risk to health. However, Persimmon Homes takes its
health and safety duties very seriously and therefore invoked its
policy with regard to asbestos removal."

"This has involved fully protecting the workforce whilst
segregating the asbestos and furthermore we have stockpiled the
earth that has been affected. As a further precaution the mound of
stockpiled earth has been fully covered and will be removed to a
certified tip."

Several concerned residents have contacted Burnham-On-Sea.com
regarding the new housing development, which is being built on a
former landfill rubbish tip.

One, who lives nearby, said: "The original landfill site was
contaminated land and cost the local authority a substantial
amount to remediate and make safe for the general public. We trust
Persimmon have in place control measures to ensure that the
general public and the eventual occupiers of the houses built on
that land are protected. The fact that the work was being carried
out by a different company to the original construction company
Harris & Harris, and that the personnel were wearing disposable
overalls would indicate that precautions are being taken, however
we believe the question of contaminated land outside the existing
landfill was never raised in the original planning consultations."

Another resident added: "Originally the local authority had
promised to make a play area on top of the old tip when it was
free of gas emissions and safe to do so. They planned to cover the
site with a 300mm layer of topsoil but when local people pointed
out the hazardous nature of some of the dump's contents they had a
rethink." "A full and extensive remediation was carried out to
make it safe for future public use. We would like to know if these
recent excavations and removal of topsoil are dealing with extra,
unexpected hazards or further results of the decades of fly
tipping."

"We would also ask if the top soil taken from Lawrence Close and
dumped next to the contaminated soil will also cause problems.
There has also been some movement when the dumper truck collecting
bricks stored next to the contaminated soil, delivering them along
Wallis Wells Rd and into Lawrence Close, leaving large amounts of
mud and stones on the road."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Fibro Trial Attributed to Complexity
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a four-month long asbestos trial in the New York Supreme
Court that ended in a $12.5 million plaintiff victory can be
attributed to its complexity and vast number of defendants at the
onset of trial, says one trial attorney.

The four-month legal battle began in Justice Barbara Jaffe's
courtroom in Nov. 2013 and came to an end on March 18 with a $12.5
million award in damages for three construction workers' families.

Danny Kraft, Jr. of Weitz & Luxenberg explained that asbestos
cases are often times consolidated in order to save time, which is
what happened here. Three separate but factually similar lawsuits
were consolidated, allowing experts to testify once rather than
being called to the stand three separate times.

Kraft added that if the cases were tried separately, his counsel
would have been in trial for more than a year.

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
and 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.

Kraft explained that the consolidated trial began with 30
defendants, meaning opening statements lasted much longer than
what is typical during trial. Eventually, only Con. Edison, Mario
& DiBono, Eaton and Cutler Hammer were left at the time of
verdict.

Also, the cases were complex, Kraft said. In McCloskey's case
alone, thousands of pages of records and depositions were needed
because it involved the construction of the World Trade Center, he
said.

"It took us a long time to get through all of the evidence," Kraft
said.

During trial, the court adjourned for holidays, including two full
weeks for Christmas and New Year's, as well as every Wednesday,
Kraft added.

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 Found in Burning Building Near Infirmary
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradford Telegraph and Argus reported that Asbestos has been
discovered at a fire which has broken out in a hospital building
in Heaton, Bradford, United Kingdom.  Firefighters were called out
to Daisy Bank, a building near Bradford Royal Infirmary in
Duckworth Lane.

A fire had broken out in a basement, and on arrival crews from
Fairweather Green and Bradford called for back-up from colleagues
from Bingley, Idle and Cleckheaton stations.  A fire service
spokesman said: "This is a two-storey stone building with a fire
in the basement. Crews are using four breathing apparatus and two
hose reels to deal with the incident."  He said they had also
discovered white asbestos at the scene, so a specialist
decontamination fire crew from Dewsbury had also been called out.

The fire service had said the building was part of Bradford
District Care Trust, but a trust spokesman said ownership had been
transferred to Bradford Teaching Hospitals in November.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Educ. Program Execs Sentenced Over Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that two former executives from a now-defunct nonprofit
organization were sentenced to prison for exposing as many as 80
Merced County high school students to asbestos in an attempt to
cut corners in asbestos removal.

Patrick Bowman and Rudy Buendia III pleaded no contest to federal
charges of violating federal asbestos laws in May.  Bowman, who
was also a teacher with the Valley Community School in Los Banos,
Calif., served as Firm Build's board president and coordinator of
the Workplace Learning Academy, and Buendia was the nonprofit's
construction project site supervisor.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the Eastern District of
California sentenced Bowman to 27 months and Buendia to 24 months
in federal prison.

Joseph Cuellar, Firm Build's former administrative manager, was
also charged but filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea,
which was later denied. As a result, O'Neill gave Cuellar's
counsel until May 15 to file additional motions before moving
forward with sentencing.

Firm Build had a contract with the Merced County Office of
Education to provide job training and work experience programs to
local "at-risk" high school students from the Workplace Learning
Academy. The program was intended to teach trade skills to
students as young as 14 years old.

The students would work for part of the school day and receive
school credit for their work. Some were paid minimum wage for the
work they performed, Bowman's plea agreement states.

Instead, the trio knowingly used to students to remove asbestos
during a demolition and renovation project at Castle Commerce
Center's Automotive Training Center, located at 2245 Jetstream
Drive in Atwater, from September 2005 to March 2006.

The "defendants falsely represented that Firm Build, Inc. intended
to perform a renovation construction project . . . with no
disturbance or removal of any asbestos containing materials,
including flooring, insulation and piping, when, in truth and
fact, defendants knew that the renovation and construction project
would involve the removal of asbestos containing materials," the
indictment states.

During the construction work, students and employees removed and
abated between 700 and 1,000 linear feet of asbestos-containing
pipe insulation.  The students were required to remove asbestos-
containing materials without first learning proper removal methods
and were not provided appropriate respiratory protection.

Job Coach Joe Gudino testified that they would cut through the
insulation and pipes and let them drop to the ground, creating
dust. He added that the insulation was "crumbly."

Students also cut out the insulation, dragged it to dumpsters and
removed the remaining dust with dustpans. They also occasionally
used sledgehammers to remove pipe insulation and then used their
hands or shovels to dispose of the material in dumpsters.

Job Coach Angelo Gonzalez testified that employees and students
put the asbestos-containing insulation in garbage bags and
wheelbarrows and disposed of it in dumpsters, which were picked up
by the Central Valley Disposal to take to regular landfills.

According to court records, the men knew the building had asbestos
in it when they negotiated the lease.

Cuellar later told several contractors during a job walk that they
had no intentions of disturbing the asbestos-containing materials,
but said Firm Build would handle necessary asbestos abatement.

In the fall of 2005, Firm Build Job Coach Mariano Resendez
testified that Cuellar walked him through the building and pointed
out the asbestos. When Resendez expressed concern about working
with asbestos, Cuellar told him to "just get it done," "we're
losing money," "we're already past the date of completion."

Resendez also said that when discussing the use of respirators for
asbestos removal, Buendia told him, "We're not going to worry
about that right now . . . we're friends, don't make a big deal of
it."

Then in 2006, all three executives agreed that there was no
asbestos in the building and that it had been removed before the
contractors began working at the site.

Bowman and Buendia also pleaded no contest in May to state felony
charges of treating, handling or disposing of asbestos in a way
that risked serious injury to students, with reckless disregard
for their safety.  Their sentences will cover convictions in both
state and federal court.

Bowman and Buendia will both self-surrender at 2 p.m. on June 27
to begin their sentences.

Restitution has not yet been determined.

O'Neill also waived the trio's appeal rights.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nurses Air Concerns Over Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that nurses
at a psychiatric hospital have expressed "grave concerns" about
HSE plans to remove potentially dangerous asbestos from a ward
while staff and patients are still in it.

Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA) members said it was
"incomprehensible" that the HSE plans to remove asbestos from a
hospital ward in Glanmire, Co Cork while 13 patients and staff are
still in situ.  They're also shocked that an agency tasked with
safeguarding the public's health has suggested such a move when
the Naval Service has "locked down" two ships after discovering
asbestos on board.

The Navy said it won't let anybody other than members of a
specialist clean-up team into the vessels to remove the material.

According to staff, an asbestos removal team was supposed to start
work at Unit 3, St Stephen's Hospital, but didn't arrive after the
protest was mounted.  Psychiatric nurses can't understand why the
HSE wants to do this now, rather than wait until the unit is
closed on April 28 for a total overhaul.

The PNA said the protest was organised to highlight "health and
safety concerns" about plans to carry out the work on the acute
admissions unit for males.  Admissions were to cease there on
April 14, ahead of the temporary shutdown two weeks later for
complete refurbishment.

Nurses claim in the interim patients could be easily moved to
another unit around 50 metres away while the work is being
undertaken.

The PNA said a report commissioned by the HSE South had confirmed
that asbestos is present in ward's floor, but they also believe it
may be present in the walls.  PNA sources said the last time
asbestos was removed from wards at the hospital all patients were
transferred out of them before the work began.  They are also
concerned that other parts of the hospital, which was built in the
1950s, may also be contaminated with the substance.

Fianna Fail spokesman for health Deputy Billy Kelleher said he
thought it ironic that the Naval Service had locked down two ships
when the HSE proposed to carry out asbestos removal while patients
and staff remained in the ward.

The TD, who lives close to the hospital, said "all patients and
staff had to be removed prior to any works being carried out".

However, the HSE said specialists had classified the asbestos as
"very low risk" and they would partition off work areas and seal
them to prevent any air transmission to patients and staff.

"The works will be supervised and monitored by an independent
accredited specialist company, who will undertake air sampling
during all phases of the works," a HSE spokesman said.

He added that patients wouldn't be removed during the work.

"The remedial works themselves will be completed while the unit
remains operational.

"Similar works have been completed in other occupied acute in-
patient settings in Cork in recent years," the spokesman added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsfield Contractor Fined $24K Over Fibro Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Keitz, writing for 22WWLP.com, reported that the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has fined an
abatement contractor nearly $25,000 for violating state asbestos
regulations.

In a statement to 22News, Mass DEP discovered the violations
against MJ Environmental during an inspection of asbestos
abatement work at a building on Bartlett Street in Pittsfield in
March 2012. The contractor was cited for improper removal of
asbestos materials that site.

In a consent order, MJ Environmental was required to pay $10,000.
Mass DEP has agreed to suspend the remaining $14,400 fine if the
contracting company complies with the state's asbestos handling
regulations for two years.

"Asbestos contractors must be held accountable for the protection
of the public health and welfare of the general public," said
Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield. "MassDEP will take firm enforcement action against
non-compliant contractors to protect public health and level the
playing field with the vast majority of contractors who do comply
with the regulations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's Devastation at Dockyard Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Greenwood, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that the
family of a tragic Devonport, England, Dockyard worker have spoken
of their devastation at losing him to asbestos-related disease.

Derek Sparks had been a fit and healthy family man. He'd played
football into his mid-thirties and was a regular on the terraces
at Home Park.  But at the age of just 44, he died suddenly in his
bed at home, a victim of the asbestos he had been exposed to
during his time as a fitter and turner at Devonport Dockyard.

For his wife Valerie and daughter Karen, the emotions are as raw
as they were almost 40 years ago.  But they have found solace from
the fact, unknown to them until now, that his death inspired the
union campaign to stop workers being routinely exposed to the
deadly material.

Mr Sparks was born in the village of Millbrook, South East
Cornwall, and began an apprenticeship in the dockyard after
leaving school.  After two years' National Service, which he
loathed, he went back to work in the dockyard in 1959 -- at a time
when asbestos was widely used in shipbuilding, mainly as
insulation material, but with little or no understanding of the
risks it posed.

"We were engaged when I was 16, we got married when I was 20 and I
had Karen when I was 25," Valerie said. "He really was the nicest
man you could hope to meet.

"He became part of our family and was the son my mother never had.
He was a lovely man. He was only young. He didn't deserve what
happened."

Valerie, now 75, said her husband was rarely ill and the kind to
pass on coughs and colds without suffering himself.  But they were
thrown into disarray when the results of an x-ray at the dockyard
showed a shadow on his lung and the word asbestosis first entered
their vocabulary.

"He went down to a hospital at Tehidy hospital in Cornwall where
they did a biopsy," Karen explained. "Unfortunately that left him
paralysed which they thought was something to do with the
anaesthetic.

"But it was while he was there that he overheard two doctors
talking about a poor man on the ward who was terminally ill and
was going to die. He didn't realise they were actually talking
about him."

As he recovered from the biopsy, Mr Sparks was later transferred
to Scott Hospital, then in Beacon Park, Plymouth. He was allowed
to go home, but died in his sleep the same night.

"Nobody told us he was seriously ill," Karen, who was 15 at the
time, said.

"We didn't know what we were dealing with. We had no idea. We
didn't know what asbestos did and had never heard of
mesothelioma."

The family were devastated. A friend with Mr Sparks's weekly
wages, due to be paid on the day of his death, was stopped at the
gates of the dockyard.

"It was devastating," Valerie said. "In those days you lived week
to week and we simply didn't have any money."

Their short-term financial crisis was eased with GBP50 delivered
by union leader Bill Goffin.

The grief-stricken mother and daughter were then faced with a post
mortem, probate, a coroner's inquest and pursuing compensation
from the Ministry of Defence.

"We felt abandoned," Karen said. "The Ministry of Defence didn't
want to know at all, to them we was just another number. But he
was my dad. There was no counselling, nothing. We lost control of
our lives."

The family, with the help of Valerie's parents, slowly began to
rebuild their lives. As Valerie put it: "I had a young daughter to
bring up, life goes on and you have to get on with it."

Compensation from the Ministry of Defence helped although, as
Karen said: "It was a pittance compared to the value of someone's
life. I would give everything I own just to have one more word
with my dad."

Karen is now a married mother-of-one. Valerie remarried only four
years ago.  But it was an interview with former senior dockyard
AUEW/AEEU convener Bill Goffin, and his successors John Williams
and Dick Powell, which delivered news they had never heard.

Mr Goffin said it had been Mr Sparks's death that had inspired the
union's continuing fight against asbestos in the dockyard. After
meeting the young family he had vowed "never again".

En masse, the union's men began to refuse to work when asbestos
was present, despite threats from management. The collective
action would eventually result in a health and safety regime years
before any enforced by legislation.

"We never knew," Karen said. "It feels like he didn't die in vain.
If my dad knew that he had helped others that would be something
he would have treasured. To learn that after all this time is a
real comfort for us."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Contractors Fined for Storage Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reported that two Washington contractors at the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation will pay more than $175,000 in fines
after an investigation found alleged asbestos violations.

The Environmental Protection Agency says CH2M Hill Plateau
Remediation Co. will pay $131,594 and Washington Closure Hanford
will pay $44,000 in settlement agreements.

The Tri-City Herald reports the alleged violations were discovered
during a 2012 inspection.

EPA says 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.

The penalties announced were related to clean air regulations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Fines Real Estate Developer for Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
SafetyBLR.com reported that a New York real estate development and
management company is facing $2.3 million in proposed fines for
exposing employees and contractors to asbestos and lead hazards.
OSHA's Albany area office conducted an inspection in response to a
complaint. Inspectors found that employees and contractors were
exposed to asbestos and lead while performing renovation and
cleanup activities.

According to OSHA, the development company failed to take basic
safety precations and did not inform employees or contractors
about the presence of asbestos and lead, despite knowing both
hazards were present. As a result, OSHA issued 45 willful
citations; about half of them were for per-instance exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Boss Thinks Fibro Concern Was "A Beat Up"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
the man credited with deciding in 1978 to eliminate asbestos from
James Hardie products said he thought at the time that widespread
health concern about its use in building materials was a "media
beat-up".

David MacFarlane was the managing director of James Hardie
Industries between 1978 and 1989 and has never before given
evidence about his role in the company, which manufactured and
distributed building and other products containing asbestos.
He told the Dust Diseases Tribunal in Sydney that on taking the
top job he received a brief from the Hardie board.

"My job was to get rid of asbestos. . . just to do it as quickly
as possible," he said.

The directive was issued because "asbestos was getting very
expensive" and "asbestos was in bad odour around the world".
In extraordinary evidence to the tribunal, Mr MacFarlane said that
at the time he thought "the risk side of it was overdone" and
"there was a lot of talk about it but I didn't think it was as
dangerous as people said, if it was properly controlled".

Under cross-examination by Peter Semmler, QC, he said he was so
comfortable with the product that "I went on using it myself . . .
A common thought at the time was that dust inhaled in small
degrees over a long period of time didn't do much damage".

"Who held that view?" Mr Semmler asked, to which Mr MacFarlane
replied: "The world did."

Stephen Wickham, 52, a freelance lighting designer from
Thornleigh, is suing Amaca Pty Ltd, formerly known as James Hardie
& Coy Pty Ltd, for damages.

Mr Wickham was diagnosed last year with mesothelioma, caused by
exposure to asbestos. The father of two is part of the so-called
"third wave" of asbestos victims exposed to the lethal dust and
fibres during renovations and do-it-yourself odd jobs of homes
built between the 1940s and the late 1980s.

Mr Wickham demolished an old fibro shed and fence at a home he had
purchased in Perth in 1994. He moved to Australia from England in
1987 and, while he was aware asbestos was dangerous, he was
unaware that "fibro" contained asbestos, he said.

He is suing for damages, claiming James Hardie should have funded
a widespread public awareness campaign targeted at home renovators
about the dangers of handling, drilling and demolishing building
material containing asbestos.

His solicitor, Tanya Segelov, from Turner Freeman lawyers, said
Amaca appeared to be using Mr Wickham's claim as a test case.
The hearing continues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Warns Defendant of Filing Baseless Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that several defendants in a Mississippi man's asbestos lawsuit
were denied dismissal for filing "generic, baseless motions."

In an April 1 order, Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the requests for
dismissal for failing to support their arguments with legal
memoranda, calling them "bare bones motions."

"I warn all parties, however, that I will not tolerate generic,
baseless motion practice designed to delay or to multiply the
proceedings," Perry wrote.

Nearly all of the motions sought dismissal alleging plaintiffs
Edna and James Harrell failed to state a claim and requested a
more definitive statement of claims against them.

However, Perry wrote that after reviewing the complaint in light
of government federal standards, she found it adequately stated
claims against the defendants.

Perry also found that the Herrells are not required to file more
definitive statements of their claims because the complaint was
not found to be "so unintelligible, vague, or ambiguous such that
the defendants cannot reasonably frame a response."

"The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail,
but whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in
support of is claim," she added. "A viable complaint must include
'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'"

According to the lawsuit, James Harrell developed an asbestos-
related illness through occupational and bystander exposure while
working as an aviation electronics technician. He worked with
asbestos while in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1989 and as a
supervisor at Sikorsky Aviation in Meridian, Miss., From 1989 to
2004.  He alleges he was also exposed to asbestos from brakes,
clutches and gaskets while performing auto repairs at his home
from 1965 to 2011.

James Harrell was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness on
Feb. 25, 2011.

Perry also ordered that any future motions must be in accordance
with Federal Rules of Civil Procedures as well as "ethical
obligations to this court."

Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, Perry wrote that
motions to dismiss under this rule are designed to strike at
unintelligible allegations rather than desire for more detail.

According to Rule 12, "a party may move for a more definitive
statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed
but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot
reasonably prepare a response."

Perry also addressed defendant United Technologies Corporation's
motion to join defendant Northrop Grumman System Corporation's
notice of removal, granting the motion for joinder.

United Technologies claims it has an independent right to removal
under the federal officer removal statute, which allows for
removal of a civil action by the United States, national agency or
officer. However, those seeking removal under this statute must
show that it is acting under a federal officer, the conduct for
which it is being sued was done under the federal office and a
proper defense is raised.

United claimed removal was proper under the federal officer
statute because the plaintiffs alleged the asbestos exposure
stemmed from United Technologies' aircraft engines while James
Harrell served in the U.S. Navy.

United provided an affidavit supporting its allegations that its
design aircraft engine design was under the direction of federal
officers. It further argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's Boyle
decision provides defendants the opportunity to assert government
contractor immunity when appropriate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found After Bradford Hospital Blaze
----------------------------------------------------------
Telegraph & Argus reported that asbestos was discovered during a
fire which broke out in a Victorian hospital building in Heaton.
Firefighters were called out to Daisy Bank, a building near
Bradford Royal Infirmary in Duckworth Lane, at 7.15am.

A fire had broken out in a basement and, on arrival, crews from
Fairweather Green and Bradford called for back-up from colleagues
from Bingley, Idle and Cleckheaton stations.

A fire service spokesman said: "This is a two-storey stone
building with a fire in the basement. Crews using four breathing
apparatus and two hose reels to deal with the incident."  He said
they had also discovered white asbestos at the scene, so a
decontamination unit from Dewsbury had also been called out.

The fire service had said the building was part of Bradford
District Care Trust, but a trust spokesman said ownership had been
transferred to Bradford Teaching Hospitals in November.

The building dates back to 1845 and its most recent use was as
inpatient rehabilitation services for patients with mental health
problems.  It has since been vacated, and plans approved to re-
locate office staff from Bradford Royal Infirmary there to free up
clinical space in the hospital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senator Wades in to Fibro Row at Psych Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that a
senator who worked at psychiatric hospital which is at the centre
of an asbestos row says that HSE plans to remove the material
while patients are still in situ is simply not an option.

Senator John Gilroy knows St Stephen's Hospital better than most,
having worked as a psychiatric nurse there for 20 years before
being elected to the Seanad in 2011.  He has waded into the
controversy after psychiatric nurses staged a protest outside the
hospital to highlight their "grave concerns" about plans to remove
asbestos from a ward while the patients continue to be housed
there.

Mr Gilroy said he couldn't understand why the HSE couldn't wait to
do the job when the ward is closed for a major refurbishment in
three weeks' time.

The HSE maintains that the work can be undertaken with the 13 male
patients in situ because experts say the removal of the asbestos
is classified as "very low risk".  The asbestos is contained in
the floor of the ward and the HSE said works areas will be
partitioned off.  The HSE also said that the partitions will be
sealed off preventing any air pollutants leaving the works area.

However, Mr Gilroy said, regardless of this, the noise alone will
be extremely disruptive to patients and staff.

"If they are removing asbestos from the floor they'll probably
have to use kango hammers. If this was happening at Cork
University Hospital, I'm sure the patients wouldn't be left in the
ward," he said.

The Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA) says it could move all
the patients into a unit less than 50 metres away.

The hospital originally opened in 1955 to deal with tuberculosis
cases. With developments in treatment for TB the need for beds in
the hospital declined and so it became a psychiatric hospital.

"Back then dangers of asbestos weren't realised. In its intact
form there's no risk, but when it's broken up the dust presents
the problem. There should be an asbestos audit and risk assessment
of all the buildings in the hospital," he said.

The senator said he remembered a few years ago that asbestos had
to be removed from another ward at the hospital and the patients
were transferred to another building until the work was complete.

The builders were supposed to move in, but didn't arrive on site.
It was the same day the PNA held its protest.  It's understood the
PNA is considering what further steps it might take to protect the
health and safety of patients and staff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Educ. Dept. to Remove Fibro From Wales School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Irwin, writing for Northcote Leader, reported that Wales St
Primary School in Australia will be out of bounds during the
school holidays while the Education Department removes asbestos.

As previously reported by the Leader, asbestos particles were
found in the carpet in the building known as Block C after
renovations during the summer holidays.

The rooms were subsequently used by Prep students and staff in the
first week of school.

In a newsletter to parents, acting principal Judi Benney said the
work would continue throughout the holidays.

"It will involve the removal of all asbestos from the building and
reinstatement of the interior," Ms Benney wrote.

"As a result of these works, the school grounds and buildings are
expected to be cordoned off."

Ms Benney asked parents to keep their children away from the
school while the work was being carried out.

Department spokesman Simon Craig said investigations were
continuing into how the asbestos exposure occurred.

Principal Christopher Sexton was moved to the regional office in
February and is yet to be reinstated.

The department has said his removal was not for disciplinary
reasons and that Mr Sexton was helping with its investigations
into the asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Undecided on Fibro Laws
------------------------------------------------
Judith Kerr, writing for The Redland Times, reported that council
in Redland City, South East Queensland, is still deciding how
state government changes to laws governing asbestos removal will
affect the city.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie launched a five-year strategy
which indemnifies local councils from some asbestos removal risk.

Under the strategy, drawn up with the Local Government Association
of Queensland, council will be the authority responsible for
asbestos removal for residential properties. The state will co-
ordinate its removal from commercial dwellings.

State workplace health and safety staff will train council workers
on best practice.

Mr Bleijie said the strategy made everyone's responsibilities
clear.

"What we've got now is a clear responsibility line which means if
someone is working on renovating a domestic property and there's
an issue, whether it is an asbestos outbreak . . . local
governments can now go in, lead the charge with qualified and
trained people."

He said the state would accept the responsibility and indemnify
council officers so they could ensure properties were safe.

However, council said it was too early to determine the
ramifications the strategy would have for the city.

"Until council has had the chance to read the state government
plan in full and understand how it is likely to affect our
business and the wider community, we are unable to comment on the
specific impacts the plan will have."

The council was forced to quarantine a section of the Macleay
Island foreshore, where construction materials, including
asbestos, were dumped.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Judge Lifts Deferral on Punitive Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the New York Supreme Court Justice Sherry Klein Heitler
delivered an order reinstating claims for punitive damages in the
New York City Asbestos Litigation.

The Weitz & Luxenberg law firm filed the motion requesting an
order to lift former deferral requirements for punitive damages in
Section XVII of the NYCAL Case Management Order (CMO).

"What I cannot ignore is the fact that victims of asbestos
exposure are permitted to apply for punitive damages in every New
York state court except this one," Heitler wrote. "I for one
cannot justify a situation in which an asbestos plaintiff is
permitted to apply for punitive damages in Buffalo but not this
court. This raises serious constitutional equal protection
concerns which should not be overlooked."

Opponents of the motion for allowable punitive damages include the
NYCAL defendants' counsel, various members of the NYCAL
defendants' bar and several individual defendants, as well as the
Coalition for Litigation Justice.

While plaintiffs assert deferral is unethical, unconstitutional
and prevents defendants from engaging in settlement discussions,
opponents believe punitive damages will only deplete resources,
punishing future asbestos victims and filling the pockets of
plaintiffs attorneys.

"The ruling will enrich plaintiffs' lawyers at the expense of
those who develop asbestos-related illnesses in the future," the
American Tort Reform Association stated in a recent Judicial
Hellholes post.

Defense attorney Mark Behrens of Shook, Hardy & Bacon explained
that Perry White of the plaintiff's side argued that claimants
needed a club to beat defendants into settlement because there
aren't enough trial dates available.

However, the thought struck Behrens as odd considering the
plaintiffs typically argue that defendants are trying to take away
jury trials; and now plaintiffs indicate they are trying to remove
jury trials in an attempt to reach more settlements, he said.

"The order gives asbestos plaintiffs firms in New York a new club
for pounding defendants into giving up their right to a jury
trial," Behrens continued.

Heitler credited each side for presenting "well-reasoned,
thoughtful" arguments, but granted Weitz & Luxenberg's motion for
punitive damages on a case-by-case basis, stating that the amended
CMO will continue to govern all NYCAL proceedings.

"I therefore hold that pursuant to CMO XVII, following notice and
a hearing, the deferral of counts for punitive damages in NYCAL
cases is lifted, and CMO XVII shall be deemed modified as
hereinafter set forth," Heitler wrote. "As such plaintiffs are no
longer barred from applying to the NYCAL trial judges for
permission to seek punitive damages."

The modified section reads:

"Applications for permission to charge the jury on the issue of
punitive damages shall be made on a case by case basis to the
Judge presiding over the trial(s) of the action(s) at issue, who
shall determine such application(s) in his or her discretion and
in accordance with the particular trial schedule established by
such Judge. Such applications shall be made at the conclusion of
the evidentiary phase of the trial upon notice to the affected
defendant(s), to which such defendant(s) shall have an opportunity
to respond. Should the trial Judge, in his or her discretion,
permit such charge, and the jury determines that punitive damages
are warranted, the trial Judge shall hold a separate trial before
the same jury solely on the issue of the amount of punitive
damages to be awarded."

Heitler further determined that New York law requires NYCAL
plaintiffs to have the same opportunities to seek punitive awards
as any other plaintiff in the state, which must be applied
equally.

In response, she acknowledges that punitive damages are typically
accepted in New York courtrooms when the wrongdoing was deliberate
"and has a character of outrage frequently associated with crime."

However, Heitler made it clear that she expects plaintiffs to use
their new tool ethically.

"While plaintiffs have evinced their intention not to abuse this
opportunity, it is appropriate for the court to caution the
plaintiffs' bar not to overstep this permission by attempting to
seek punitive damages indiscriminately," Heitler wrote. "Punitive
damages should only be sought in the most serious cases to correct
for the most egregious conduct, and must present a valid reference
to corrective action."

ATRA, on the other hand, does not appear to be convinced the
punitive damage awards can be used responsibly. According to the
2013 Judicial Hellholes Report, the average jury award for
plaintiffs in all NYCAL cases since 2007 is $21.7 million, which
is roughly seven times larger than the $3.1 million average award
in courts throughout the rest of the state.

"The only purpose piling on punitive damages serves is to make
NYC's asbestos lawsuit industry even more lucrative," the ATRA
post states.

In her order, Heitler explained that modern lawsuits recognize the
remedy of punitive damages as punishment for extraordinary
wrongdoing and as a means to deter future harmful conduct.
Therefore, punitive damages are aimed at retribution and
deterrence.

According to New York's Pattern Jury Instructions, the "purpose of
punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish
the defendant . . . and thereby discourage the defendant and other
(people, companies) from acting in a similar way in the future."

As for NYCAL's CMO, the order states that tens of thousands of
"complex, time-consuming" asbestos lawsuits have been filed in the
New York Supreme Court alone.

In an effort to manage the court's asbestos docket, Justice Helen
E. Freedman oversaw the origination of the CMO in 1988 to govern
all NYCAL cases.

The CMO was originally silent on the issue of punitive damages,
Heitler explained. However, in 1996 Freedman independently added
section XVII, which "requires that all punitive damage claims be
deferred until such time as the court deems otherwise, upon notice
and hearing.

"Because New York allows imposition of punitive damages in tort
cases, rather than merely dismissing the claims, I deferred all
punitive claims indefinitely," Freedman explained in a 2012
Southwestern University Law Review article.

Freedman added that it seemed like the right thing to do because
she found no "corrective purpose" to charge companies with
punitive damages for wrongs committed 20 or 30 years ago, and "in
many cases, the wrong was committed by a predecessor company, not
even the company now charged." Likewise, companies should not be
repeatedly punished for the same wrong.

She also argued that punitive damages only deplete resources that
should be used to compensate injured parties.

However, now the plaintiffs claim the "NYCAL landscape" has
changed so dramatically since 1996 that deferral of punitive
damages no longer applies, Heitler explained.

In response, the defendants filed a cross-motion to vacate the
entire CMO and to continue deferring counts for punitive damages
indefinitely, which Heitler denied.

The opposing parties claim Freedman's reasons for deferring
punitive damages are "even stronger today than they were almost 20
years ago."  They agree with Freedman, arguing that the large
number of punitive verdicts would inflate settlement values,
resulting in fewer resources available to future asbestos
claimants.

Both Behrens and ATRA agreed with the importance of these
implications.

The asbestos litigation industry has already seen almost 100
companies file for bankruptcy. If plaintiffs today get huge
verdicts with the addition of punitive damage awards, more
companies will go bankrupt and victims of tomorrow will suffer,
Behrens explained.

"Ultimately, the people who are going to pay the price are future
asbestos victims," Behrens said.

Responding to a defense argument that punitive damages would
deplete resources and force more companies into bankruptcy,
Heitler countered it by saying they have failed to show that such
bankruptcies were caused by punitive damage awards in the past.

Instead, she explained, information indicates bankruptcies were
the result of initial mass filings and projections of future
filings.

The opposing parties continue to argue that such awards would
serve no purpose since nearly all asbestos-containing products
have been eliminated nationally already and the availability of
punitive damages in NYCAL would enhance the advantage that
plaintiffs already have in asbestos litigation.

Heitler points out that when it comes to asbestos, she supports
the defendants' argument that nearly all asbestos-containing
products have been eliminated nationwide; therefore, "punitive
damage awards may not serve a strictly corrective or deterrent
purpose."

Heitler agreed that punitive damages indisputably are limited by
constitutional constraints, but didn't go so far as to say they
are unconstitutional.

"Contrary to defendants' arguments such constraints are not
designed to deter plaintiffs from seeking them; the caselaw
highlights the fact that punitive damages may only be awarded
under certain circumstances," Heitler wrote.

On the other hand, ATRA asserts that these constitutional
constraints have not been effective enough in the past.

"These constraints, however, have not stopped over 100 businesses
from declaring bankruptcy due to asbestos liability," ATRA stated
in its post. "And, while the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually
adopted helpful measures to control punitive damages 'run wild,'
the high court has not yet squarely and effectively addressed the
due process implications of repeatedly punishing a business for
the same conduct. While more than half of the states have placed
an upper limit on punitive damage awards, providing some measure
of predictability, New York legislature, dominated by plaintiffs'
lawyers, has not done so."

Addressing the defendants' cross-motion to withdraw from the CMO,
Heitler wrote that "while the plaintiffs' bar is not completely
satisfied with some of the CMO's provisions, the defendants' bar
is similarly not content with others. That is the reality of any
bargained for position, to which the parties have signed on."

"Notwithstanding the great desirability of having the parties
mutually agree to a case management plan, I am also compelled to
point out that I nevertheless have the authority to issue case
management orders upon consultation with the parties, and am not
required to obtain their consent to the CMO as a whole or for any
of its parts for it to be a valid order of this court," she added.

Heitler addressed the opposing parties' reluctance due to their
concern that the remainder of the CMO favors the plaintiffs with
accelerated trial settings, consolidated trials and standard
discovery, calling the argument "unfounded."

She added that the negotiated provisions of the CMO "are in
harmony" with the CPLR and New York's Uniform Rules for Trial
Courts.

Ultimately, Heitler explains that CMO is designed to benefit all
parties by eliminating transaction costs, discouraging repetitive
discovery, requiring plaintiffs to produce proofs of claim prior
to trial, and preventing the docket from becoming bogged down
among other benefits.  She also expressed hope that all parties
could continue litigating despite opposition to the reintroduction
of punitive damages.

"From the inception of this litigation, plaintiffs' and
defendants' counsel have zealously but respectfully litigated
opposite each other under the CMO and all of its various
modifications, ultimately with the ability in most instances to
resolve their differences. It is my sincere hope that this will
continue. I wish to thank the entire liaison committee for their
professionalism and hard work over these past few years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winnebago County Board Gets Fibro Update
---------------------------------------------------------
Rae Yost, writing for Forest City Summit, reported that there is
no additional asbestos in the walls of the Winnebago County law
enforcement center, county building maintenance supervisor Kevin
Williams told the county board on April 1.

Williams had a company analyze the building for asbestos that may
remain in it after the county already had asbestos removed from
the building's basement.  Williams was concerned the wall may
contain asbestos. He wanted to know for sure because when new
computer wiring and other work is done in the walls, he wanted to
make sure he knew of any asbestos issues.  It's likely there is
asbestos in the ceiling and roof of the building, Williams said.

"So there's no threat of working with the walls, boring holes for
IT stuff?" supervisor Terry Durby asked.

"There's no worry of asbestos there," Williams said.

The county also heard more from Williams at a prior county board
meeting on March 18. Williams said the air conditioning unit that
cools the dispatch office in the building frequently blows fuses.

"I wouldn't be surprised if that needs to be replaced," Williams
said. The unit operates about 10 months of the year because the
dispatch office gets very hot, Williams said.

Williams said the board will probably need to decide if it wants
to try and repair the unit or replace it.

If the unit is replaced, Williams suggests, considering a
combination heating and cooling unit so it could function as a
back-up unit to the building's main boiler heating system.

Supervisor Mike Stensrud suggested checking to see if it was
possible to buy a combination unit that could be moved to a new
public safety center or similar building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: KiwiRail's Fibro Locos Back to Work
----------------------------------------------------
3News reported that KiwiRail's 40 Chinese-built locomotives, taken
out of service for nearly six weeks over asbestos fears, are
gradually returning to work.  The first of the DL locomotives
began working again and more would be reintroduced in the coming
weeks.

At the end of February, cancer-causing asbestos was found in
soundproofing compound used in the engine bay and around the cabs.
However, tests could not find any asbestos in the air of the cabs.

Newer locomotives are having their doors replaced and are being
cleaned and sanitised while their remaining asbestos will be
removed over the next 12 months.

Older locomotives will not return to service until all the
asbestos-containing material is removed -- which should be within
the next six months.

KiwiRail chief executive Peter Reidy says KiwiRail is satisfied
the locomotives are safe.  Losing 40 locomotives forced KiwiRail
to suspend services in Northland, but they would resume, he said.

Rail and Maritime Transport Union general secretary Wayne Butson
says a cautious approach was the right one.

However, if the stock was built locally there would not have been
an asbestos scare and 40 locomotives lost for nearly six weeks, he
said.

"It's important we don't gloss over the full impact of National's
decision to abandon our local rail manufacturing workforce and
industry and opt for the cheapest possible price for these
locomotives."

Contracts to build electric commuter trains for Auckland and flat
top wagons have also gone to overseas builders.

"KiwiRail will inevitably have whole-of-life cost blowouts if it
continues to take a short term procurement approach solely focused
on the cheapest products available."

The locomotives were built by Chinese company Dalian Locomotive
and Rolling Stock Co, which has agreed to carry the cost of the
asbestos work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gauteng Gov't to Replace Fibro Roof Tiles
----------------------------------------------------------
Ntombi Nkosi, writing for The New Age, reported that the Gauteng
department of human settlements in South Africa is in the process
of replacing asbestos roofing with tiles.

The department will use houses affected by storms late last year
as pilots for the project and will prioritise vulnerable groups
such as the aged, indigent and people living with disabilities.

MEC Ntombi Mekgwe said the assessment would be conducted in all
municipalities in Gauteng and would focus mainly on houses built
before 1994 in old townships that were formerly reserved for
black, Indian and coloured people.

The department needs to conduct the assessment before they could
replace all asbestos roofing with tiles, since asbestos was banned
in the country in 2008.

"The assessment will enable the department to get information for
its implementation planning stage," she said.

In terms of safety of the residents, Mekgwe said the people
conducting the assessment will be wearing branded bibs and
carrying identification cards.

The second stage will, among others, include liaison with the
department of labour on regulations and procedures for the
handling of the asbestos roof material and its disposal.

"I have noted that after the recent extreme weather in Gauteng, an
assessment showed that the asbestos roofing in a number of
township houses had deteriorated to the extent where they were
likely to release dust particles into the air, which is the cause
of asbestos-associated diseases," she said.

The project will create a number of job opportunities around the
province with targeted employment to be extended to the youth, who
will commence with training in the handling of asbestos products.

"The scarce skills to be acquired by the youth during the training
and project will be unique and will place them in a favourable
position for future work," she said.

The MEC said her department would work closely with all
municipalities in communicating about and implementing the
project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Derelict Fitzroy Bldgs a Fibro Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that an Aboriginal community is hoping the
building of new houses will prompt a decision to have asbestos-
ridden buildings demolished.  The Kurungal Council, which runs the
Fitzroy Valley community of Wangkatjungka, has written to the
Minister for Housing asking for help to remove two decaying
buildings that have exposed asbestos panels.

The Minister's office has responded to say that it will pay to
demolish the buildings if the sites are used for planned new
federally-funded houses.

Council CEO Viane Watson says it is hoping that will happen as
quickly as possible, as children are being put at risk.

"It's a derelict building, it's run-down and smashed up and it's
been there for quite a few years," she said.

"It sits right opposite a playground where children play and it's
not even fenced at the moment.

"We don't have money to fence it and to keep people out, so it's
just been like that for a while."

She says something needs to be done quickly.

"From the community and the council's perspective, as soon as
possible .... honour what the Minister's saying hopefully this
year," she said.

The Member for Mining and Pastoral ,Stephen Dawson, says it is
another example of why an audit of asbestos buildings in
Aboriginal communities is needed.

"My fear is that in 30 or 40 years we'll have an epidemic of
Aboriginal people aged in their 40s who played in these buildings
in their younger years and who will find out they've got
mesothelioma or other nasty diseases," he said.

In a written statement, the Department of Housing says a program
of works has been undertaken to remove asbestos buildings from
communities where new houses are being built.  It says while it
has no responsibility for the two buildings in question, they will
be demolished if the land is required for construction of the
planned new houses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Firm Says Fibro Claims Yet to Peak
------------------------------------------------------------
William Telford, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that the
number of claims resulting from asbestos-related illnesses has yet
to peak, says a Plymouth law firm specialising in handling such
cases.

Wolferstans Solicitors has a team of lawyers working on the
industrial disease claims, which can lead to compensation of up to
GBP200,000 being paid.

James Walsh, a partner who heads the team, said Plymouth is a "hot
spot" for claims, due to so many workers having been exposed to
asbestos in Devonport dockyard.

"It hasn't peaked yet," he said.

John Messham, an associate in the team, said: "The figures suggest
it will peak in 2020. Cases are coming out of the woodwork."

Mr Walsh has been working on cases since 1996 and said
compensation for someone suffering asbestos-caused mesothelioma,
an incurable form of cancer, could be up to GBP200,000, for
instance if the person has left dependents.

But damages and compensation vary, depending on factors such as
the age of the sufferer.

"We settled one case for over GBP350,000," Mr Walsh said.

Mr Walsh and Mr Messham are part of a team that also includes
solicitor Dean Cruickshanks, litigation assistant Alexandra
Nicholas and litigation assistant Kathryn Lewis.

"We're kept busy dealing with asbestos cases," Mr Walsh said.
"Seventy-five per cent of our clients are from the Plymouth and
Cornwall region.

"At any time we have 100 cases on our books."

He said one Wolferstans free Saturday advice clinic attracted 30
people.

"In 2008-12 there were 296 mesothelioma deaths reported in Devon
and Cornwall," he said. "That could be the same for asbestos-
related lung cancer."

It comes as The Herald has been highlighting the issue of
asbestos-related illness in recent weeks.

The substance, which has insulation and fire- retardant
properties, was used extensively in industry and construction.

It wasn't banned in the UK until 1986, by which time it was
revealed as the cause of a range of illnesses.

Wolferstans says asbestos is the single biggest cause of work-
related deaths in UK, responsible for 4,000 fatalities each year,
of which more than half are caused by mesothelioma.

Mr Walsh said the "primary cases" are people who were exposed at
work during the 1950s to 1980s.

"There's a latency period," he said. "It takes a minimum of 10
years, but could be up to 50 years after exposure for symptoms to
develop. We are dealing with people in their 60s and 70s."

He said "secondary" cases are where people come into contact with
asbestos via another person, for example Plymouth's Debbie Brewer,
who died last year, believed to have been exposed to the substance
when hugging her dockyard-worker father.

"There are plenty of cases where the person does not even know
they have been exposed," Mr Walsh said.

The new Mesothelioma Act 2014 creates a Government- and insurer-
backed fund of last resort for mesothelioma cases only, where
diagnosis is on or after July 25, 2012.

Mr Walsh said it will help sufferers who are unable to locate the
employer or their insurers, possibly because the firm is no longer
in existence.

But they still need to prove they were exposed.

Mr Walsh said it is also possible people may have been exposed to
asbestos used in buildings, such as schools, if it had been
"disturbed".

"There were a lot of council buildings in Plymouth with asbestos
in their roofs," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deal Brings Hope for Third-Wave Fibro Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ean Higgins, writing for The Australian, reported that the fund
which pays compensation to victims of James Hardie Industries
asbestos building products has settled a landmark court case
minutes before the seriously ill plaintiff was due to take the
stand.

The settlement came during a hard-fought court battle in the NSW
Dust Diseases Tribunal, seen by plaintiff lawyers as a critical
test of whether Hardie will accept liability for "third wave"
claims where do-it-yourself home renovators are unwittingly
exposed to the killer fibre.

The Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund this afternoon agreed to
settle the case brought by Stephen Wickham, who contracted the
deadly asbestos chest cancer mesothelioma last year.

His lawyer, Turner Freeman partner Tanya Segelov, came out of a
flurry of negotiations with the Hardie fund's lawyers during an
adjournment to tell The Australian the case had been settled on
confidential terms.

"It's a good result," Ms Segelov said of the settlement.

"A man with a limited time to live does not want to spend it in
the courtroom," she said.

Mr Wickham, who now works as a theatre staging director in Sydney,
said he was happy with the outcome, but surprised that Hardie's
fund had not settled in the first place.

"I was expecting to settle without going to court," he told The
Australian.

"I am very glad if this in any way assists any other people in a
similar situation."

Ms Segelov noted Hardie had settled shortly before Mr Wickham, who
has lost considerable weight and been given six months to two
years to live, was to give evidence for the first time.

But she said the plaintiff side had other evidence which would
have proved damaging to Hardie had the case proceeded.

Mr Wickham was exposed to Hardie asbestos dust 20 years ago when
he was living in Perth and demolished an old shed and part of a
fence on his property.

Ms Segelov said the Hardie fund had years ago essentially given up
contesting this sort of case and settled them straight out, until
it initially refused to settle Mr Wickham's claim.

She said she suspected the fund had changed tack and initially
decided to fight this case because such third wave claims were on
the rise and could threaten the future integrity of the fund,
which is paid for by a portion of Hardie's free cashflow each
year.

The AICF has refused to say why it initially defended Mr Wickham's
claim, and its lawyers declined to comment after the settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rail Company Says No Fibro Was Disturbed
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wainwright, writing for Nuneaton News, reported that a rail
company has spoken out to quash rumours that its contractors have
disturbed asbestos at a Nuneaton signal box that is being
demolished.

Network Rail is reassuring residents that the deadly dust has not
been disturbed at the Trent Valley signal box, in Oaston Road.
The rail company clarified the situation thanks to resident Andrew
Hammerschmiedt who contacted the News after he heard rumours that
work had halted due to asbestos being in the air.

Mr Hammerschmiedt, who lives on the street, said: "Workmen filled
a skip with trash but now everything has closed down.

"Nobody has told us anything, but a lot of residents are worried
because we've heard that they've found asbestos and there was a
lot of dust in the air when they were doing the work.

"There has also been a lot of illegal parking, with contractors
parking on double yellow lines."

But Network Rail has said that although there is asbestos in the
signal box, this has not been disturbed and will be removed
properly.

A spokesman for Network Rail said: "Work to demolish the empty
signal box is underway and is due to be completed by the end of
May.

"At no stage during work already carried out has asbestos been
disturbed.

"There is asbestos within the structure and this will be removed
by a licensed contractor."

The Network Rail spokesperson added: "We will remind all workers
of the need to park in the correct areas as part of our commitment
to minimise disruption in the surrounding area."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Staff Exposed to Fibro Fear for Families
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, civilian staff exposed
to potentially dangerous levels of asbestos told a senior navy
officer during a heated meeting that their families may also be at
risk of lung damage.

At the meeting, 11 civilian workers employed by the Department of
Defence told the officer that, as they were not wearing protective
clothing they could have brought dust particles back to their
homes and thus also put their families at risk.  The exposure
lasted up to two days as the men carried out routine maintenance
on the LE Ciara. One of the men said it appeared the senior
officer didn't have the answers to any potential impact on their
health and that of their loved ones. They also asked that they be
given X-rays and ongoing screening.

The Irish Examiner has learned that asbestos was first discovered
by an alert workman who was among a group carrying out maintenance
on the LE Ciara's sister ship, LE Orla, on March 27.  The alarm
was raised while the LE Orla was in Verolme dockyard. Both she and
the LE Ciara were immediately locked down by navy bosses.

The asbestos wasn't disturbed on the LE Orla, but during the
previous two days the asbestos was ground down and broken up on
the LE Ciara.

The 11 civilian workers and seven Naval Service personnel moved
the broken asbestos, which was releasing harmful dust, to a
warehouse.

Tests were carried out on the substance and on April 2 it was
confirmed the men had been handling asbestos.

A spokesman for the Naval Service declined to comment on what took
place at the meeting. However, he said the primary concern of the
Naval Service remains the safety and well-being of its members,
civilian employees and contractors.

"We are currently following all HSA (Health & Safety Authority)
guidelines while dealing with the current situation. Assessments
are ongoing with health professionals and medical staff for those
who may have been potentially exposed to these materials," the
spokesman said.

"The Naval Service are working with all persons potentially
affected to address their concerns. It is not intended to comment
on any ongoing internal meetings or consultation processes."

It's expected that the asbestos will be removed from the two ships
shortly and disposed of in a safe manner.

In 2000 consultants told the navy all its ships were asbestos-
free.

As a result of the find all ships in the fleet will be surveyed
again.

HSA demands risk assessment before asbestos removal

The HSE will not be allowed to remove asbestos from a psychiatric
hospital until it has satisfied the Health and Safety Authority
that the work will not adversely impact on patients.

The HSE had planned to remove asbestos from a 13-bed unit at St
Stephen's Hospital, Glanmire, Co Cork while patients and staff
were still in situ.

Work was cancelled after concerned members of the Psychiatric
Nurses Association (PNA) held a protest at the hospital's main
gate.

The PNA then made a complaint to the Health & Safety Authority
saying removing the asbestos could lead to health problems, plus
major inconvenience to patients and staff.

PNA spokesman Derek Cunningham said an officer from the Health &
Safety Authority since held a meeting with hospital management and
instructed them to carry out a multi-disciplinary risk assessment
on the impact the work would have on each of the 13 patients.

The unit they're in is to close on April 28 for a complete
refurbishment and the PNA says its "incomprehensible" that the HSE
cannot do the work then, when the patients are transferred to
another building.

"The Health & Safety Authority move vindicates what the PNA said,
that it (the work) would be hugely upsetting to the clients in the
unit," Mr Cunningham said.

Fianna Fail spokesman on Health Billy Kelleher said he also
welcomed the move.

Senator John Gilroy, who worked for 20 years as a psychiatric
nurse at the hospital, maintained the only way to remove the
asbestos flooring at the unit was to use kango hammers and this
was totally unacceptable while patients and staff remained in the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Fears for Sons' Wellbeing
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that six
years ago, John Jorritsma watched his brother die of mesothelioma,
never thinking for a moment he would follow in his footsteps.

But the brothers' choice of careers -- Mr Jorritsma as an
electrician bringing him into contact with asbestos insulation,
and his brother as a motor mechanic bringing him into contact with
asbestos in brake dust -- ultimately gave them cancer.

Now Mr Jorritsma wants to raise public awareness about the deadly
substance for three reasons -- his sons. One is an electrician,
one a carpenter and one an engineer.

"I guess I never really took asbestos seriously," he said. "Now I
tell my boys not to go near the stuff. Just, please, do not go
near it."

Mr Jorritsma handed over his electrical business to his son five
years ago. Late in 2012 he was mowing the lawn and could not
finish due to breathlessness. His diagnosis of mesothelioma was
followed by some months of chemotherapy, but earlier this year his
oncologist gently suggested Mr Jorritsma take his wife of 43
years, Stephanie, on a holiday.

They booked seats on the Indian Pacific train to Perth. Mr
Jorritsma was so ill he was admitted to hospital in Adelaide. Now
the couple are back in Canberra and Mr Jorritsma is being assessed
for palliative care.  He shakes his head when he thinks back to
the hundreds of Canberra homes he worked on over his career --
those that were affected with Mr Fluffy asbestos before it was
removed and those that showed the telltale signs of being part of
the Commonwealth's clean-up program.

"You can tell straight away the Mr Fluffy houses. Their roof
spaces are clean and painted in white [PVA] paint," Mr Jorritsma
said.

"I tell my son now to check the roof and if he sees the white
paint to leave immediately.

"Don't touch the power points. Explain to the owner that you can't
work on the house, that your father is dying from jobs like that."
In the meantime, Mrs Jorritsma is haunted by thoughts of asbestos
as she cares for her husband. She worries constantly about her
sons being exposed as well as other families in the ACT facing the
devastation of an asbestos-related disease. "I feel we can't
escape it; it is everywhere in Canberra."

If Mr Jorritsma could have a final wish granted it would be to see
the government provide protection to all tradespeople working on
houses that may contain asbestos.

"Give them the list of Mr Fluffy houses. They are so dangerous.
Tradespeople need to know what they are walking into.

"It disgusts me that the government is avoiding having a register
of these houses."

The job of caring for mesothelioma sufferers, such as Mr Jorritsma
meanwhile, just gets busier for Canberra Hospital lung and
mesothelioma cancer nurse care co-ordinators Judy Rafferty and
Jennifer Northey.

According to Ms Rafferty, 10 Canberrans were diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2012, with the diagnosis rate and death toll set
to rise in coming years.

"It takes between 20 and 50 years for the disease to take hold, so
given Canberra was largely built in the 1950s and '60s, the cases
are just going to increase."

Ms Rafferty said once a diagnosis was made it was important to
give every patient hope.

"We need to give them hope that they can tackle a bucket list and
that they can live for the time they have left, and not just
exist."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DHEC Detects Fibro in Pile of Debris
-----------------------------------------------------
Courtney Griffin, writing for CarolinaLive.com, reported that a
pile of debris that's an estimated 80 feet by 70 feet by 25 feet
sits outside a Myrtle Beach motel on Ocean Boulevard that's slated
to be demolished.

The Department of Health and Environmental Control found small
amounts of asbestos in the pile, though it's not entirely clear
where all of the debris came from.

Some of it could be left over from the nearby Golden Sands
demolition in January, or from the interior of the Holiday South
as it's prepared to be torn down, or it could be from somewhere
else entirely, according to Myrtle Beach Spokesman Mark Kruea.

Bruce Barnes, who's been staying next door says he's seen what he
believes to be illegal dumping.

"There's been other people dumping stuff in here too. We've seen a
pick-up truck or two come and throw stuff on the pile too," said
Barnes.

Jim Beasley with DHEC confirms they've received complaints about
construction and demolition waste being dumped at the site.  Kruea
says a contractor brought debris from a house being worked on to
the Holiday South Motel site.

The demolition of the Holiday South is pending DHEC's asbestos
inspection.

"We can't issue a demolition permit until the state has done an
asbestos inspection, the asbestos has been removed, and we get the
certificate saying there's no asbestos in the building," said Mark
Kruea, Myrtle Beach city spokesman.

For Dan Pahon, the maintenance manager at Vancouver Motel, which
stands right next to the debris, says it's the asbestos in that
debris pile that worries him.

"They need to get this covered at least, and somebody come in and
do something about this mess. Summer is here already, the tourist
season started. We're full over here, and we got people asking us
questions every day about this mess," said Pahon.

For disposal, the entire pile of debris will be treated as if it's
all contaminated, since DHEC can't estimate the total quantity of
asbestos in the pile.

Asbestos fibers can be toxic if inhaled, and can cause lung
cancer.

DHEC says everything is under investigation and can't comment any
further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Staff Exposed to Fibro Fear for Families
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that civilian
staff exposed to potentially dangerous levels of asbestos told a
senior navy officer during a heated meeting that their families
may also be at risk of lung damage.

At the meeting, 11 civilian workers employed by the Department of
Defence told the officer that, as they were not wearing protective
clothing they could have brought dust particles back to their
homes and thus also put their families at risk.

The exposure lasted up to two days as the men carried out routine
maintenance on the LE Ciara. One of the men said it appeared the
senior officer didn't have the answers to any potential impact on
their health and that of their loved ones. They also asked that
they be given X-rays and ongoing screening.

The Irish Examiner has learned that asbestos was first discovered
by an alert workman who was among a group carrying out maintenance
on the LE Ciara's sister ship, LE Orla, on March 27.

The alarm was raised while the LE Orla was in Verolme dockyard.
Both she and the LE Ciara were immediately locked down by navy
bosses.  The asbestos wasn't disturbed on the LE Orla, but during
the previous two days the asbestos was ground down and broken up
on the LE Ciara.

The 11 civilian workers and seven Naval Service personnel moved
the broken asbestos, which was releasing harmful dust, to a
warehouse.

Tests were carried out on the substance and on April 2 it was
confirmed the men had been handling asbestos.

A spokesman for the Naval Service declined to comment on what took
place at the meeting. However, he said the primary concern of the
Naval Service remains the safety and well-being of its members,
civilian employees and contractors.

"We are currently following all HSA (Health & Safety Authority)
guidelines while dealing with the current situation. Assessments
are ongoing with health professionals and medical staff for those
who may have been potentially exposed to these materials," the
spokesman said.

"The Naval Service are working with all persons potentially
affected to address their concerns. It is not intended to comment
on any ongoing internal meetings or consultation processes."

It's expected that the asbestos will be removed from the two ships
shortly and disposed of in a safe manner.

In 2000 consultants told the navy all its ships were asbestos-
free.

As a result of the find all ships in the fleet will be surveyed
again.

HSA demands risk assessment before asbestos removal

The HSE will not be allowed to remove asbestos from a psychiatric
hospital until it has satisfied the Health and Safety Authority
that the work will not adversely impact on patients.

The HSE had planned to remove asbestos from a 13-bed unit at St
Stephen's Hospital, Glanmire, Co Cork while patients and staff
were still in situ.

Work was supposed to start, but was cancelled after concerned
members of the Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA) held a protest
at the hospital's main gate.

The PNA then made a complaint to the Health & Safety Authority
saying removing the asbestos could lead to health problems, plus
major inconvenience to patients and staff.

PNA spokesman Derek Cunningham said an officer from the Health &
Safety Authority since held a meeting with hospital management and
instructed them to carry out a multi-disciplinary risk assessment
on the impact the work would have on each of the 13 patients.

The unit they're in is to close on April 28 for a complete
refurbishment and the PNA says its "incomprehensible" that the HSE
cannot do the work then, when the patients are transferred to
another building.

"The Health & Safety Authority move vindicates what the PNA said,
that it (the work) would be hugely upsetting to the clients in the
unit," Mr Cunningham said.

Fianna F il spokesman on Health Billy Kelleher said he also
welcomed the move.

Senator John Gilroy, who worked for 20 years as a psychiatric
nurse at the hospital, maintained the only way to remove the
asbestos flooring at the unit was to use kango hammers and this
was totally unacceptable while patients and staff remained in the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Finally Cleared from Gas Line Leak
---------------------------------------------------------
Travis Khachatoorian, writing for KREXTV.com, reported that
construction crews finished cleaning up the site of last year's
gas line explosion on Seventh Street near Orchard Avenue, in Grand
Junction, Colorado.

Recently the site caused alarm for some residents when it was
learned that asbestos was still in the area.

"I call it our year of hell is finally starting to have some
closure to it," said neighbor to the property Derek Dickey.

The properties affected by the explosion were purchased by
Colorado Mesa University back in September of last year. Officials
with the school said asbestos abatement is completed, and
construction crews have finally taken out the last of the of the
previous buildings' foundations.

"The houses that were built on this property were built in the
40's and 50's, and at that time asbestos was a commonly used
construction material," said CMU public relations Dana Nunn. "When
the houses caught fire, that asbestos was distributed somewhat on
the property, so we got that all cleaned up."

The school bought the properties as part of their "30 year plan"
to expand the university. The plan involves buying up available
land in between 12th Street and 7th Street, and North Avenue and
Orchard Avenue.

The property is expected to remain an empty lot in the near
future. Officials with the school said they don't have any
specific plans for the plot yet, but they currently are piling
extra dirt from other CMU construction projects on the land.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsinites Can Look to Ohio for Fibro Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that as Wisconsin asbestos courtrooms and attorneys prepare for
the changes the new asbestos transparency bill provides,
referencing the experience with Ohio's similar bill passed in 2012
could indicate less hectic courtrooms in the future.

On March 31, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed Assembly Bill 19,
which requires plaintiffs to disclose claims they have filed or
anticipate filing against asbestos bankruptcy trusts to prevent
double-dipping in the civil justice system.

The bill also prohibits plaintiffs from claiming privilege to
trust claims materials and trust governance documents

"The plaintiff may not claim privilege or confidentiality to bar
discovery under this paragraph and shall provide consent or other
expression of permission that may be required by the personal
injury trust to release information and materials sought by the
defendant," the bill states.

AB 19 was introduced in February 2013. A little more than a year
later, Wisconsin joins Ohio and Oklahoma as the only three states
with legislation on trust transparency.

Defense attorney Mark Behrens of Shook, Hardy & Bacon explained
that while he can't say exactly how the bill will affect
settlements, he believes it will affect cases going to trial more
heavily; although asbestos lawsuits typically settle before ever
making it to trial.

Requiring plaintiffs to provide information filed with bankruptcy
trusts may have the most influence in trial when parties bring
evidence of asbestos exposure before a jury, he added. Because
asbestos trials are so infrequent, the discovery information may
not play as large of a role in settled cases.

However, the Wisconsin bill has not gone without opposition.

A group of Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate formed a campaign
called Veterans For Veto in an effort to prevent the bill from
being signed into law.

Lobbyist Jason Johns of Wisconsin Legislative Strategies has
represented the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and the
Military Order of the Purple Heart in opposition against the bill.
Together, these three veterans groups represent roughly 100,000
Wisconsin veterans.

"Although many of our members recognize the great things the State
Legislature and Governor have done for veterans this legislative
session, unfortunately, all of the good will now be overshadowed
by the deaf ear to our pleas to stop this devastating legislation
to our veterans and their families who have been exposed to
asbestos," Johns said.

Veterans groups are concerned that the bill could result in
veterans collecting less money as trust funds are depleted.

Opponents also fear that transparency requirements could postpone
trials, risking the possibility that some mesothelioma victims
could die in that time frame and would therefore hurt the chances
of the claimants to collect full damages.

"AB 19 was written to impede and delay the legal process in which
a victim of asbestos poisoning and mesothelioma can seek justice,"
Johns said.

"It also assures that all settlement offers and verdict amounts
will now be drastically reduced. Given this horrible fact, many
victims will not see the filing of a lawsuit against a known
defendant to be economically feasible as the time and expense
involved versus the potential of receiving just compensation will
not be worth the burden on the dying victim and their families."

While comparing how the state's asbestos dockets will react to the
new rules to Ohio's experience with transparency laws will not
produce identical outcomes, Ohio's bill could provide some insight
as to what can be expected in Wisconsin.

Initially, plaintiffs attorneys in Ohio opposed its transparency
bill as well, challenging it on constitutional grounds but lost,
defense attorney Richard Schuster of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
LLP explained.

However, after it was passed, Schuster said the hype and wide-
scale opposition faded and plaintiffs lawyers were able to comply
with the requirements.

Schuster praised the result of Ohio's version of the transparency
bill, which was passed in 2012, saying it has been very successful
from the defense perspective.

"Ohio's bill took a long time to get passed," he added, "and since
its passage, it has really worked well.

"I think that the concerns that plaintiffs' counsel expressed
during the legislative process about making them impossible to
practice, it turned out not to be true."

The Ohio transparency bill has successfully minimized discovery
disputes, allowing things to move more smoothly through the court
system.

Before the transparency laws were passed, the courts were spending
time handling discovery disputes and provisions

"Our tort systems were bearing the brunt of all these judicial
disputes," he added.

Now, Schuster explained that materials defense attorneys fought to
obtain were being provided.

"Not only do we not have to fight over them," Schuster said, "they
are voluntarily being provided."

Requests for interview from several plaintiffs' attorneys in Ohio
went unanswered.

Schuster did say opposition in Ohio hasn't disappeared completely.
Plaintiffs still periodically challenge discovery requests, which
then require hearings.

Behrens said Ohio's experience with a similar transparency bill
makes it harder for opponents in other states from making the same
claims that the bill will punish asbestos victims and delay
proceedings.

At the same time, Behrens added that the Wisconsin bill
exemplifies how states are moving forward to adopt transparency
reforms.

"It is another step forward in recognizing the need for greater
transparency between the trust system and the tort system,"
Behrens said.

While the opposition surrounding the bill may slowly fade away as
asbestos litigants accept and adjust to the new rules, it doesn't
necessarily mean every state is on its way to pass similar laws,
Schuster pointed out.

Schuster explained that some jurisdictions will be unlikely to
consider such a bill. A main factor, he says, is the political
makeup of a state's legislature.

Transparency bills will likely be passed in states that have large
asbestos dockets and a tort reform friendly legislature, he said.

"I think there are select jurisdictions where similar bills will
be passed," Schuster said.

The unlikelihood that transparency bills could be passed in every
state could have some hoping for national asbestos reform putting
their hope in the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act,
which now sits in the U.S. Senate.

However, turning to the FACT Act as the nationwide answer to the
issue would be misguided, he added.

Comparing the two, Schuster explained how they are "very
different" with unique goals. The FACT Act is more focused on
requiring bankruptcy trusts to report information to the federal
government. On the other hand, the state bills do not put any
obligations on the bankruptcy trusts at all.

"I don't think the FACT Act would provide the type of relief that
the Wisconsin bill does," Schuster said.

The asbestos docket has been through rough waters before,
including the wave of asbestos lawsuits that drove roughly 100
companies into bankruptcy, Behrens said. Over time, acting players
in the asbestos dockets nationwide helped correct the problem.

"Ultimately, the system does make corrections," Behrens said, "and
abuses eventually get addressed. It takes a long time and it's
very difficult, but change is possible and corrections are made."

"It doesn't happen overnight and it requires a sustained effort
and a lot of education."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homes with Fibro Insulation Should be Demolished
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
head of Australia's federal Asbestos Safety and Eradication
Agency, Peter Tighe, said he would not allow his family to live in
a home affected by Mr Fluffy asbestos insulation and that
Canberra's 1050 Mr Fluffy homes should be ''demolished''.

Mr Tighe also warned state and territory legislation was failing
to protect people in their own homes as maximum asbestos exposure
levels were enforceable only in a workplace through Work Health
and Safety laws.

Workplaces could not contain more than 0.1 fibres per millilitre
of air before authorities had to close them down, while homes had
no maximum level, he said.

''These Mr Fluffy homes are a ticking time bomb as far as I am
concerned. There is no amount of cleaning that can be done to make
them safe and I certainly would not allow my family to live in one
of them.''

The ACT government has refused to release a list of affected homes
because of privacy issues and because of widespread home owner
concern it could affect their property prices. But Mr Tighe said
incurable cancer was a more pressing issue.

''In my view, equity in relation to property is nonsense. Someone
has to make some decisions and we need a clear understanding of
how to resolve this problem.''

The national agency Mr Tighe heads was established last year to
address Australia's historic and growing problem of asbestos
exposure.

Currently, 700 people die each year as a direct consequence of
asbestos exposure, with numbers set to peak in 2022.

Mr Tighe warned there was no safe level of exposure to asbestos,
which was a class 1 carcinogen, and that exposure commonly led to
the cancer mesothelioma with a lag time of usually between 15 and
25 years.

One of the important functions of the agency was to monitor
potential asbestos exposure among members of the community through
a new National Asbestos Exposure Register.

Set up last June, it had recorded 529 cases nationally, 29 of
which were from the ACT.

Of the ACT cases, 26 reports of exposure were work-related, two
were home-related and one other-related, with one of the cases
confirmed to have led to a diagnosis of asbestosis.

''We are very keen to get the word out there that this register
exists and would encourage anyone who thinks they may have been
exposed to get in touch with us.''

Mr Tighe, a former electrician and member of the board of Safe
Work Australia, said he had been following developments closely in
the ACT as a result of the widespread use of loose amosite
asbestos insulation installed in homes during the 1970s.
This presented a very ''unique and serious'' problem.

Mr Fluffy founder Dirk Jansen had caused enormous public health
risks through his advertising campaigns and because the Canberra
climate meant people sought out cheap insulation.

Asbestos was banned in Australia in 2003.

Mr Tighe said amosite, or friable asbestos, was a particularly
dangerous threat because its loose fibres were microscopic and
could easily become airborne. ''I believe it is impossible to
completely guarantee these homes can be cleaned of all traces of
the asbestos,'' he said.

In 1988, the Commonwealth paid $100 million for contractors to
forensically clean the roof spaces of affected homes over a five-
year period -- missing at least four in the process. But the ACT
government has since warned homeowners there was no guarantee
homes would be completely clear of the asbestos and it was likely
to have blown into wall cavities and subfloors.

It has recommended appropriate safety checks need to be done to
ensure homeowners are not exposed -- particularly during
renovations.

The majority of homes having certified asbestos assessments over
the past two months have tested positive for residual asbestos.
While the ACT government has been pursuing the Commonwealth for
costs associated with remediating the homes missed in the original
cleaning program -- including $2 million spent spent since 2005
-- negotiations are believed to be at a standstill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Bypass Project Advances Amid Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard N. Velotta, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reported
that members of the Regional Transportation Commission aren't
happy that it took the Nevada Department of Transportation nearly
three months to move on the discovery of naturally occurring
asbestos on the route of a highway project deemed one of the
state's most important.

Commission Chairman Larry Brown, a Clark County commissioner,
criticized Transportation Director Rudy Malfabon for failing to
notify the transportation commission of the discovery of asbestos
by researchers on the Boulder City bypass section of the proposed
Interstate 11 project.

"The bottom line is you need to either let us help you or you need
to get out of the way," Brown said. "I have a lot of respect for
you, but this is frustrating."

The I-11 project will link Phoenix with Las Vegas and a key
portion of the route is a bypass of Boulder City just north of
Hoover Dam.

Brown also had a few choice words for the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas researchers who didn't reach out to the transportation
commission either.

The Boulder City bypass is a two-phase $600 million project,with
12.5 miles nearest to the Arizona border under the transportation
district's jurisdiction and 2.5 miles closest to Las Vegas under
the state's.

"Our 12-1/2 miles, we're finishing in 4« months, maybe five
months," Brown said. "You're going after 2.75 miles or thereabouts
and it's going to take six to seven months. Hire a second firm.
Hire our guys. Let them keep digging on your side. Did we not
offer that? . . . It's unbelievable."

According to a timeline established by Brown at the monthly
commission meeting, UNLV researchers told the department about the
discovery of asbestos particles in late November. The discovery
was reported by the news media in early December -- the first time
commissioners had heard about it.

The transportation department approved a contract to Tetra Tech, a
Pasadena, Calif.-based environmental engineering firm, in February
to determine the extent of the asbestos problem and how to address
it. The firm said it would complete its work by July, but Malfabon
has urged the company to speed it up.

The state Transportation Board first discussed the asbestos issue
at its March meeting.

Meanwhile, the commission hired Las Vegas-based Kleinfelder,
another environmental engineer, when it learned of the asbestos
problem in December.

Under the terms of the project agreement, the state could
collaborate with the transportation commission on its portion of
the project. The fact that it didn't was what ignited Brown's
criticism.

A single report on the asbestos must be filed to the Federal
Highway Administration, which means Kleinfelder and Tetra Tech
will have to work together at some point.

Transportation commissioners are concerned that the communications
breakdown would lead to construction delays and credibility
problems at a time when the public voted to give the county
authority to raise fuel taxes through indexing to speed up and
build additional highway projects.

At the meeting, the commission voted unanimously to approve a
process to bid its portion of the bypass, a design-build project
for a four-lane highway that would circle Boulder City to the
south with a timeline for an October bid award. Three joint
ventures cleared an initial request for qualifications on the
project.

The Kleinfelder asbestos mitigation report is scheduled for
delivery in May, weeks before it is expected to be put out for
bid.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ball Raises GBP11,000 for Fight v. Fibro Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that three women who all lost their fathers to
mesothelioma have raised a staggering GBP11,000 for the battle
against the asbestos-related cancer.

Amanda Miller, Fran Milner and Rachel Thackray organised a sell-
out fundraising ball in aid of Mesothelioma UK at Drax Sports and
Social Club near Selby.

The night of glitz and glamour, featuring auctions and raffles,
was attended by former EastEnders actress Kierston Wareing, who is
patron of the charity, accompanied by her friend, author B W
Knight.

The organisers, who raised GBP7,500 through a similar event last
year and GBP4,500 in 2012, said they were overwhelmed by the
success of the event.

Amanda, of Thorne, said: " Our goal when starting to organise a
ball was to try and raise awareness of this awful condition. We
had no idea that we could raise so much."

Rachel, of Osgodby, said that raising so much money had made all
the hard work worthwhile. "We have had such great support from the
community and sponsors. I am proud to have been involved."

Fran, of Carlton, said: "We are so grateful for the generosity of
those who supported the events and turned up on the night.
Everyone had a great time and some real good has been done'.

The women praised Kierston for backing the event, saying it helped
raise the profile of the 'awful disease.'

Kierston, who played Kirsty Branning in the BBC soap until
Christmas and became a patron of Mesothelioma UK after her mother
Carol died from the disease, said it relied on the support of
great events such as this. "The charity helps people very day,"
she said. "The money is much appreciated."

Ball sponsor and friend, Howard Bonnett of Corries Solicitors
Limited of York, said Amanda, Fran and Rachel's achievements were
inspiring. "Those who attended and helped will make a real
difference to asbestos victims not only in Yorkshire but
nationwide," he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Take-Home Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New Jersey federal court
has dismissed a take-home asbestos exposure suit, ruling that
claims asserted by a former mechanic and electrician on behalf of
his wife were untimely.

In the April 8 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey found that the lawsuit was filed nine months after
the limitations period had expired.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Renee Andro, who
was allegedly exposed to take-home asbestos through her husband,
who worked as a mechanic and electrician.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Losses Continues to Drag Earnings
--------------------------------------------------------
Phil Gusman, PropertyCasualty360.Com, reported that asbestos-
related losses are not likely to create any severe capital shocks
for property and casualty insurers, but those losses will
"continue to bleed through insurers' earnings," and asbestos
reserves may be deficient by as much as $9 billion as of year-end
2013, a new analysis says.

Fitch Ratings says U.S. P&C insurers' incurred losses related to
asbestos exposures averaged about $2 billion annually for the last
five years. The ratings agency says domestic insurers with
"material asbestos-related incurred losses in 2013" include
Liberty Mutual Holding Co. ($236 million), the Travelers Companies
($190 million) and Factory Mutual Insurance Company ($152
million).

The number of asbestos claims filed annually is declining, Fitch
notes, but insurers have strengthened reserves in recent years due
to higher loss severity and rising legal costs. Fitch explains a
rising percentage of asbestos claims relate to mesothelioma, which
involve larger payouts.

Fitch Ratings says it estimates the industry's statutory asbestos
reserves are deficient by $2 billion?$9 billion at year-end 2013,
"based on estimated ultimate industry losses of $85 billion, total
paid losses of $53 billion and current reserves totaling $23
billion."

Fitch says asbestos reserves make up nearly 4% of total industry
reserves.

The ratings agency adds,"Asbestos-related losses are likely to
continue to bleed through insurers' earnings, but will not likely
generate severe capital shocks that provoke negative rating
actions. Industry practice remains largely to strengthen reserves
as claims are paid, thereby keeping reserves relatively flat. The
earnings drag from asbestos losses for the most exposed insurers
averaged almost 1 percentage point on the combined ratio for the
past five years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Spark Picket of Parliament Square
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Killick, writing for Herald Sun, reported that work was shut
down at the Parliament Square construction site in Hobart,
Australia, as concerns over asbestos sparked a war of words
between the developer and Unions Tasmania.

About 15 workers and union officials picketed the site, claiming
some workers were exposed to asbestos during the early stages of
the project.

"They feel they have put themselves in danger by being on the
project," Unions Tasmania spokesman Kevin Harkins said.

But Citta Property Group accused the construction union, the
CFMEU, of scaremongering and hiding its campaign for higher wages
behind the safety issue.

"We're confident Macquarie (the building contractor) has removed
asbestos from the site in compliance with the procedures agreed
with WorkSafe Tasmania," Citta's managing director Stephen
McMillan said.

Mr Harkins denied the asbestos issue was a front for a wage
campaign and said the company was now threatening to withdraw a
previously agreed site allowance.

"If the safety issue is only an excuse for higher wages, why is it
being investigated by WorkSafe Tasmania?" Mr Harkins said.

WorkSafe Tasmania confirmed it received a complaint from the CFMEU
in February suggesting that workers at the Parliament Square site
had been exposed to poor asbestos removal practices.

"The investigation is still ongoing and as such it is not
appropriate for WorkSafe to comment further at this time," a
spokeswoman said.

Macquarie Builders said there had been no safety breaches.

"Any material even suspected of being hazardous was identified and
safely removed from buildings prior to demolition," company
director Frank Sikkema said.

"Training and protective equipment was provided to all asbestos
removal workers and we strictly followed procedures to buffer
public areas and provided air monitoring to a higher standard than
was actually required by the code.

"All our air monitoring was sent directly to WorkSafe Tasmania and
is publicly available," he said.

Citta Property Group's $100 million Parliament Square
redevelopment began in August and demolition is more than 60 per
cent complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hiring Concerns Dominate Fibro Cleanup Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veronique Lacapra, writing for St. Louis Public Radio, reported
that the meeting hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency was supposed to focus on the first phase of the $30 million
cleanup of the former Carter Carburetor plant in North St. Louis,
Missouri. That first phase involves removing asbestos from the
site's main building.

Asbestos removal is scheduled to begin on April 21 and take about
six months to complete. Once that's done, the buildings can be
demolished and the contractors can begin carting away contaminated
soils and debris. Under the EPA's Superfund program there is no
specific deadline for finishing the cleanup, although last summer
the agency estimated it would take three or four years.

Most of the discussion at the meeting did not focus on the
asbestos abatement itself, however. Instead, much of the often
heated questioning centered on concerns over minority hiring. The
bulk of the criticism was aimed at the plant's former owner, ACF
Industries, its main contractor, AMEC, and the subcontractor that
will be handling the asbestos removal, Midwest Service Group.

Yaphett El-Amin is the executive director of MOKAN, a minority
business advocacy group.  She repeatedly asked whether the
companies involved in the cleanup would commit to hiring a
specific percentage of minority workers. The answer was "no."

El-Amin said her organization would do everything it could to
change that.

"We're not going to allow folks from Hillsboro, folks from Hayti,
folks from Caruthersville, to come into this community and work,
while unemployment rates in this community for African American
men stagger up into the high 30s," El-Amin said.

Representatives of ACF Industries and its contractors declined to
comment for this story.

But a representative of Midwest Service Group told meeting
attendees that 35 percent of the work-hours on the asbestos
removal project would be carried out by minorities and women.

That answer didn't satisfy Daniel Coleman. He's with Volition, a
local trucking and excavating company.

Speaking after the meeting, Coleman said he wants to see the
cleanup generate jobs for the people of North St. Louis -- most of
whom, like Coleman, are African American.

"I just get tired of these big jobs come about, and we don't ever
get included," Coleman said. "We're always the last to find out."

Two private companies -- ACF Industries and Carter Building, Inc.
-- are footing the bill for the overall cleanup of the Carter
Carburetor site. Because federal tax dollars are not funding the
work, an EPA spokesperson said the agency has no legal authority
to set minority hiring requirements for the project.

Representatives for U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Roy
Blunt (R) attended the meeting, along with Alderman Freeman
Bosley, Sr., who represents the district where the Superfund site
is located.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer, Bondex Want to Use Sealed Evidence
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that an insurer
of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and Bondex International are the
latest companies to seek the evidence of "misrepresentation" by
asbestos attorneys that was referenced in a landmark January
ruling.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company argued in a motion filed April 4
that access to the evidence cited by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George
Hodges could factor in Pittsburgh Corning's bankruptcy case. In
January, Hodges, who is presiding over Garlock Sealing
Technologies' bankruptcy case, said the company presented evidence
that asbestos attorneys withheld their clients' exposure evidence
in order to maximize recovery in lawsuits against Garlock.

But the specific evidence is sealed. Legal Newsline has appealed
Hodges' decision to close his courtroom during introduction of the
evidence.

In March, Judge Hodges denied motions by Legal Newsline and Ford
to unseal the evidence cited in the ruling, but did not do so on
the merits of the arguments. Instead, he decided both could appeal
and have the decision made by the district judge presiding over
Legal Newsline's appeal.

"Get all of these things done at once," Judge Hodges said at a
March 27 hearing.

Mt. McKinley Insurance says it did not file its joinder to Ford's
motion until after Hodges' ruling because the motions were
scheduled to be heard until an April 17 hearing.

"Mt. McKinley submits its joinder/motion should be addressed in
the same manner so that it may pursue appropriate relief,
including appeal," attorneys for Mt. McKinley wrote.

"Moreover, the Court indicated? that it would hear (Garlock's)
motion for the establishment of a protocol to consider requests
for public access to the estimation trial record.

"Because, as set forth herein, Mt. McKinley requires access to the
sealed evidence for the purpose of investigating with diligence
whether there is new evidence to support a motion for
reconsideration of the confirmation rulings in the Pittsburgh
Corning case and also because the Ford and Legal Newsline motions
present unusual procedural issues, Mt. McKinley separately moves
the Court for such relief."

Judge Hodges was tasked with determining how much money Garlock
should put in a trust for present and future asbestos claims.

His January order spurned asbestos attorneys who requested Garlock
place more than $1 billion in the trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bondex and its related holding company Specialty Products Holding
Corp. are going through a similar bankruptcy process as Garlock.
They filed their own motion to unseal the evidence, Rule 2019
statements and ballot materials.

"As debtors in possession in their own chapter 11 cases, the SPHC
Debtors have a fiduciary duty to their respective estates to
investigate potential claims against third parties, including
potential claims arising from manipulation of exposure evidence,
which this Court found was pervasive with respect to settlements
to which Garlock agreed," Bondex's motion says.

"Access to three general categories of information filed or
collected in the Garlock case -- the 2019 Statements, the Ballot
Materials, and the Sealed Evidence -- will greatly assist the SPHC
Debtors with their investigation."

Volkswagen, Crane Co. and Honeywell have already joined Ford's
motion. The four are frequent defendants in asbestos lawsuits.

Strangely, the transcript from the Garlock trial was recently
finished, but the bankruptcy court discovered that the parts that
were supposed to be redacted were not. Judge Hodges ordered the
destruction of any copies of those transcripts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Brussels Metro
----------------------------------------------------
Expatica.com reported that a technician working for the public
transport company MIVB in Brussels, Belgium, discovered the
presence of asbestos in an old metro carriage.

Further research confirmed the findings, after which the MIVB
decided to check old buses, trams and metros by a specialised
company.

"Passengers are not at risk", says Guy Sablon of the MIVB.  A
technician discovered two 'suspicious' insulation plates in an old
metro vehicle (type MX) manufactured in 1976.
Further research revealed the presence of asbestos fibres.
Even before this test was concluded, the MIVB decided to have 45
older metro trains checked in order to find out whether these had
the same problem.

The material containing asbestos fibres was found in more than
half of the metro trains.

The MIVB claims that these materials were not included in a list
drawn up by the manufacturers, that allegedly included all
possible asbestos danger spots in Brussels metros.  It has now
been decided to have another inventory drawn up by an external
audit bureau.  The investigation will include all older metro
trains, but also older trams and buses.

MIVB spokesman Guy Sablon says there is no danger for passengers
and drivers.  Despite this, air tests will take place inside the
older metro trains to be absolutely sure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Retains Jurisdiction Over PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an asbestos suit alleging
both U.S. Naval and automotive exposures will remain in federal
court after the court determined that Crane Co. satisfied the
elements of removal on federal officer grounds.

In the April 9 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois did, however, dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint with leave to amend after it found that the lawsuit was
not clear as to which defendants are sued in each cause of action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Had $594.2MM Reserves for Fibro Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation had a $594.2 million total gross loss and
LAE reserves for asbestos-related illness and environmental,
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 reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries
reserves for loss and LAE include amounts for risks relating to
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment. The
reserves carried for such claims, including the IBNR portion, are
based upon known facts and current legal environment at the
respective balance sheet dates. However, significant uncertainty
exists in determining the amount of ultimate liability for
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment losses,
particularly for those occurring in 1985 and prior, which
represent the majority of TransRe's asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment reserves. This uncertainty is due to
inconsistent and changing court resolutions and judicial
interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent and
coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility
for resultant damages, among other reasons. Further, possible
future changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of
liability and other factors could have a material effect on these
liabilities and, accordingly, future earnings. Although we are
unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves,
which could have a material adverse effect upon our results of
operations, may be necessary in the future, we believe that our
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment reserves are
adequate as of December 31, 2013.

As of December 31, 2013, total gross and total net loss and LAE
reserves for risks relating to asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment were $594.2 million and $442.2 million,
respectively.

As of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the reserves for
asbestos liabilities were approximately 11 times the average paid
claims for the prior three year period, and the reserves for
environmental impairment liabilities were approximately 9 times
the average paid claims for the prior three year period."

Alleghany Corporation (Alleghany) is engaged, through Alleghany
Insurance Holdings LLC (AIHL) and its subsidiaries RSUI Group,
Inc. (RSUI), Capitol Transamerica Corporation (CATA) and Pacific
Compensation Corporation (PCC), in the property and casualty and
surety insurance business. Property and casualty and surety
insurance operations are conducted by AIHL through its insurance
operating units RSUI, CATA and PCC. In addition, AIHL Re LLC (AIHL
Re) is a wholly owned subsidiary of AIHL that has in the past
provided reinsurance to Alleghany's insurance operating units and
affiliates. Alleghany Capital Partners LLC (Alleghany Capital
Partners) was established to manage its equity investments,
including those held by its insurance operating units. It also
owns and manages land in Sacramento, California through its
subsidiary Alleghany Properties. Effective July 31, 2013,
Alleghany Corp acquired a 6.25% interest in Ares Management LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Had $11.5MM Reserve for Fibro Loss
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., had recorded $11.5 million of
ending loss and LAE reserves for asbestos  and environmental
damage liability, 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: "Although we attempt to limit our exposures to
asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific
policy exclusions, we have been and may continue to be subject to
claims related to these exposures. Ending loss and LAE reserves
for all direct business written by our property and casualty
companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability
were $11.5 million, $9.8 million and $10.0 million, net of
reinsurance of $20.6 million, $20.4 million, and $18.7 million for
the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Activity for our asbestos and environmental reserves was not
significant to our 2013, 2012 or 2011 financial results. In recent
years, average asbestos and environmental payments have declined
modestly. As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of
Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market risks,
past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience
has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE
incurred experience.

In addition, we have established gross loss and LAE reserves for
assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental
damage liability of $29.8 million, $30.3 million and $31.1 million
at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. These reserves
relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation;
however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in
which we were a participant. Results of operations from these
pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our
pool reserves relates to our participation in the Excess and
Casualty Reinsurance Association ("ECRA") voluntary pool from 1950
to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the
business has been in run-off. Our percentage of the total pool
liabilities varied from 1% to 6% during these years. Our
participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of
approximately $2 million annually over the past ten years.

We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and
toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not significant, their
existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of
the possibility that they may become significant. We believe that,
notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in
asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to
these claims are adequate. Nevertheless, the asbestos,
environmental and toxic tort liability reserves could be revised,
and any such revisions could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations for a particular quarterly or annual period
or on our financial position."

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (THG) is a holding company.
THG's business operations are property and casualty insurance
products and services marketed through independent agents and
brokers in the United States. It also conducts business
internationally through a wholly owned subsidiary, Chaucer
Holdings plc (Chaucer), which operates through the Society and
Corporation of Lloyd's (Lloyd's). THG conducts its business
operations through four segments: Commercial Lines, Personal
Lines, Chaucer and Other Property and Casualty. THG underwrites
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance through
Hanover Insurance, Citizens and other THG subsidiaries, through an
independent agent and broker network concentrated in the
Northeast, Midwest and Southeast United States. Its Chaucer
segment is a specialist insurance underwriting group, which
operates through Lloyd's and writes business internationally. Its
Other Property and Casualty consists of: Opus Investment
Management, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Has 1,097 Claims for Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
XL Group plc had 1,097 open claim files for potential discontinued
asbestos claims exposures and 338 open claim files for potential
run-off environmental claims exposures, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2013, the Company had 1,097 open claim files for
potential discontinued asbestos claims exposures and 338 open
claim files for potential run-off environmental claims exposures.

The Company's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation
of the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to
discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims, including
related loss adjustment expenses. Liabilities are established to
cover both known and incurred but not reported claims. The
Company's reserving and exposures to environmental liability
business currently written within the NAPC and IPC business groups
are not included in this note, which only relates to specific
discontinued and/or run-off coverages that were not originally
written specifically to cover such environmental hazards.

The Company's exposure to discontinued asbestos and run-off
environmental claims arises from the following three sources:

   (1) Reinsurance contracts written, both on a proportional and
       excess basis, after 1972. The Company discontinued writing
       contracts with these exposures in 1985. Business written
       was across many different policies, each with a relatively
       small contract limit. The Company's reported asbestos
       claims relate to both traditional products and premises
       and operations coverage.

   (2) Winterthur -- business of Winterthur purchased by the
       Company from AXA Insurance (formerly Winterthur Swiss
       Insurance Company) in 2001. Pursuant to the Sale and
       Purchase Agreement and related agreements, AXA Insurance
       reimburses the Company for all asbestos losses.

   (3) During 2006, the Company acquired $40.2 million in losses
       through a loss portfolio transfer contract of which
       $18.3 million in losses related to asbestos and
       environmental claims. Given the terms of the policy, the
       combined aggregate limit on the total acquired reserves is
       limited to $60.0 million, not including coverage for
       claims handling costs over a defined period.

Reserves for incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance,
included in the above table were $48.6 million, $52.2 million and
$47.2 million at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Unpaid losses recoverable are net of potential uncollectible
amounts.

At December 31, 2013, the Company had 1,097 open claim files for
potential discontinued asbestos claims exposures and 338 open
claim files for potential run-off environmental claims exposures.
Approximately 37%, 42% and 43% of the open claim files are due to
precautionary claim notices in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Precautionary claim notices are submitted by the ceding companies
in order to preserve their right to receive coverage under the
reinsurance contract.

The Company's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation
of the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to
discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims, including
related loss adjustment expenses. Liabilities are established to
cover both known and incurred but not reported claims.
The estimation of loss and loss expense liabilities for
discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures is
subject to much greater uncertainty than is normally associated
with the establishment of liabilities for certain other exposures
due to several factors, including: (i) uncertain legal
interpretation and application of insurance and reinsurance
coverage and liability; (ii) the lack of reliability of available
historical claims data as an indicator of future claims
development; (iii) an uncertain political climate which may
impact, among other areas, the nature and amount of costs for
remediating waste sites; and (iv) the potential of insurers and
reinsurers to reach agreements in order to avoid further
significant legal costs. Due to the potential significance of
these uncertainties, the Company believes that no meaningful range
of loss and loss expense liabilities beyond recorded reserves can
be established. As the Company's net unpaid loss and loss expense
reserves related to discontinued asbestos and run-off
environmental exposures are less than 1% of the total net reserves
at December 31, 2013 and 2012, further adverse development is not
expected to be material to the Company's overall net loss
reserves. The Company believes it has made reasonable provision
for its discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures
and is unaware of any specific issues that would significantly
affect its estimate for loss and loss expenses.

XL Group plc, through its subsidiaries, is a global insurance and
reinsurance company engaged in providing property, casualty and
specialty products to industrial, commercial and professional
firms, insurance companies and other enterprises on a worldwide
basis. The Company is organized into three operating segments:
Insurance, Reinsurance and Life operations. The insurance
operations market and distribute coverage through a variety of
local, national and international producers and provide insurance
policies for complex corporate risks that may require large
limits. Reinsurance segment provides casualty, property risk,
property catastrophe, marine, aviation, treaty and other specialty
reinsurance on a global basis with business being written on both
a proportional and non-proportional basis and also on a
facultative basis. In February 2014, XL Group plc acquired Global
Ag Insurance Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. continues to defend itself
against lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through December 31, 2013, we have been named
a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,300 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,400 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through December 31, 2013, the claims alleging exposure to
asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled
for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand
dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make
accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of
the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not
believe that any unresolved asserted claims will have a material
adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial
position or cash flow, and at December 31, 2013, we had
approximately $3.6 million accrued for liability and related
expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to
pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses
through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources,
we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect
to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts,
limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with
respect to our insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an energy infrastructure
focused company and provider of government services. The Company
operates in four segments: Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance, which offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities; Fabrication
Services, which provides fabrication of piping systems, process
and nuclear modules, fabrication and erection of steel plate
storage tanks and pressure vessels for oil and gas and power
generation industries; Technology, which offers licensed process
technologies, specialized equipment, and engineered products for
use in petrochemical facilities, oil refineries, and gas
processing plants and provides process planning and project
development services, and Government Solutions, which undertakes
programs and projects, including design-build infrastructure
projects for federal, state and local governments, as well as
offers environmental services for government and private sector
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $60.4MM Vermiculite Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its
former vermiculite operations in Libby, as well as the cost of
remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, was
$60.4 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, in 1963 and
operated it until 1990. Vermiculite concentrate from the Libby
mine was used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other
products. Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby
mine contained naturally occurring asbestos. EPA has investigated
sites, including some owned by Grace, which used, stored or
processed vermiculite concentrate from the Libby mine. EPA, Grace,
and/or other potentially responsible parties have conducted
investigations and/or remedial actions at those sites identified
by EPA as requiring remedial action.

During 2010, EPA began reinvestigating certain facilities on a
list of 105 facilities where vermiculite concentrate from the
Libby mine may have been processed. Grace is cooperating with EPA
on this reinvestigation. EPA has requested that Grace perform
remediation at eight of these facilities. In 2011, Grace performed
preliminary evaluations to estimate the cost of remediating these
sites based on the revised criteria and recorded an aggregate
charge of $16.0 million. It is probable that EPA will request
additional remediation at other facilities. Grace does not have
sufficient information to identify either the sites that might
require additional remediation or the cost of any additional
remediation. Grace will continue to monitor EPA's reinvestigation
of the remaining sites and assess any information received from
EPA. A liability will be recorded in the future should Grace
determine that an obligation is probable and reasonably estimable.

Grace's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation studies
and other estimable matters related to its former vermiculite
operations in Libby, as well as the cost of remediation at
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, at December 31,
2013 and 2012, was $60.4 million and $60.8 million, respectively,
excluding interest where applicable. It is probable that Grace's
ultimate liability will exceed current estimates by material
amounts. Grace's current recorded liability will be adjusted as
Grace receives new information and amounts become reasonably
estimable.

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $2.1B Fibro Liability in Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s recorded asbestos-related liability was $2.092
billion, 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 were a defendant in property damage and
personal injury lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-
containing products. We emerged from Chapter 11 on February 3,
2014. We have recorded a liability as of December 31, 2013, for
our asbestos-related obligations.

Our liability for asbestos-related matters has had a material
impact on our financial condition and results of operations. The
resolution of this obligation under the Joint Plan had a material
impact on our liquidity and capital resources.

The Joint Plan established two asbestos trusts under Section
524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  All asbestos-related personal
injury claims and demands will be channeled for resolution to the
PI Trust. We are not obligated to make additional payments to the
PI Trust beyond the payments under the Plan.  We have recorded a
liability for these payments.

Following the Effective Date, unresolved and any future non-ZAI PD
Claims are to be litigated pursuant to procedures to be approved
by the Bankruptcy Court and, to the extent such PD claims are
determined to be allowed claims, are to be paid in cash by the PD
Trust. We are obligated to make a payment to the PD Trust every
six months in the amount of any non-ZAI PD Claims allowed during
the preceding six months plus interest (if applicable) and, except
for the first six months, the amount of PD Trust expenses for the
preceding six months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate amount
to be paid under the PD Obligation is not capped and we may be
obligated to make additional payments to the PD account of the PD
Trust in respect of the PD Obligation. We have accrued for PD
Claims that we believe are probable and estimable.

We are obligated to make a payment of $30 million in cash to the
ZAI PD Account on the third anniversary of the Effective Date and
we are obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments of
$8 million per year to the ZAI PD Account during the 20-year
period beginning on the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date,
with each such payment due only if the assets of the ZAI PD
Account fall below $10 million during the preceding year. The
amounts that we will be obligated to pay to the ZAI PD Account
under the Joint Plan are capped amounts. We are not obligated to
make additional payments to the PD Trust in respect of the ZAI PD
Account beyond the payments described above. We have accrued for
the $30 million payment due on the third anniversary of the
Effective Date, but have not accrued for the 10 additional
payments since we do not currently believe they are probable.

The recorded asbestos-related liability as of December 31, 2013,
and December 31, 2012, was $2,092.4 million and $2,065.0 million
respectively, and is included in "liabilities subject to
compromise" in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. We
increased the asbestos-related liability by $27.4 million in the
2013 fourth quarter to reflect an updated estimate of the value of
the consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust (the
"Trusts") under the Joint Plan, reflecting emergence from
bankruptcy during the 2014 first quarter.

The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common
stock for $17.00 per share was recorded at estimated value of $490
million on the effective date of the Joint Plan.

The deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year for five
years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per year for
ten years beginning January 2, 2024, was recorded at estimated
value on the effective date of the Joint Plan. The recorded
estimated value of the deferred payment obligation of $567 million
is within the reasonable range of possible valuations of this
obligation as of emergence. The value of the deferred payment
obligation assumes a discount rate of approximately 10% and is
affected by (i) interest rates; (ii) the Company's credit standing
and the payment period of the deferred payments; (iii) restrictive
covenants and terms of the Company's other credit facilities; (iv)
assessment of the risk of a default, which if default were to
occur would require us to issue shares of Company common stock;
and (v) the subordination provisions of the deferred payment
agreement.

The value of the warrants is expected to be treated as a
deductible expense for tax purposes in the year of settlement. The
deferred payments are expected to be deductible at the time of
each payment. Due to the payment of these and other deductible
bankruptcy claims, we anticipate generating significant future tax
deductions beginning in 2014. See Note 10 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements for a discussion of future tax deductions
that we may generate in connection with emergence from Chapter
11."

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/szqmwJ

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Has 200 Fibro Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries had approximately 400
lawsuits involving approximately 5,000 claimants alleging asbestos
exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts
primarily in Texas and Louisiana, primarily by contractor
employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, against Entergy
Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas, and to a lesser extent
the other Utility operating companies, as premises owners of power
plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to asbestos. Many
other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Currently,
there are approximately 400 lawsuits involving approximately 5,000
claimants. Management believes that adequate provisions have been
established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations
continue with insurers to recover reimbursements. Management
believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be
handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results
of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies.

Entergy Corporation (Entergy) is an integrated energy company
engaged primarily in electric power production and retail
distribution operations. It owns and operates power plants with
approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity,
including more than 10,000 megawatts of nuclear power. Entergy
delivers electricity to 2.8 million utility customers in Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergy operates through two
business segments: Utility and Entergy Wholesale Commodities. The
Utility business segment includes the generation, transmission,
distribution, and sale of electric power in portions of Arkansas,
Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, including the City of New
Orleans; and operates a small natural gas distribution business.
The Entergy Wholesale Commodities business segment includes the
ownership and operation of six nuclear power plants located in the
northern United States and the sale of the electric power produced
by those plants to wholesale customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Continues To Defend PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
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 has been named, along with numerous other non-
affiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various
states involving asbestos and/or silica. These lawsuits typically
assert claims of personal injury arising from alleged exposure to
asbestos and/or silica as a consequence of products purportedly
distributed by the Company. In 2013, the Company was named in
lawsuits relating to asbestos involving approximately 70 new
plaintiffs, and lawsuits relating to asbestos and/or silica
involving approximately 67 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect
to the Company, typically based on the lack of product
identification.

As of January 23, 2014, the Company is named in cases filed on
behalf of approximately 1,929 plaintiffs in which there is an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and/or silica. The Company has
denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in all of the above-
described lawsuits. If a specific product distributed by the
Company is identified in any of these lawsuits, the Company would
attempt to exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer. In addition, the Company believes that a substantial
number of these claims are covered by insurance. The Company has
entered into agreements with its major insurance carriers relating
to the scope, coverage and costs of defense of lawsuits involving
claims of exposure to asbestos. While the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it believes that the
ultimate resolution will not have, either individually or in the
aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position or results of operations.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., is a distributor of maintenance, repair and
operating (MRO) supplies and other related products and services
used by businesses and institutions primarily in the United States
and Canada . The Company operates in two segments: United States
and Canada. Other businesses include operations in Europe, Asia,
Latin America and other United States operations. In August 2013,
W.W. Grainger Inc acquired E&R Industrial Sales, Inc. In December
2013, the Company announced that it has completed the acquisition
of Safety Solutions Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,572 PI Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 17,572 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

In the United States, the Company has been named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the
plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product that
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier. Based on scientific and medical evidence, the Company
believes that any asbestos exposure arising from normal use of any
Company product never presented any harmful levels of airborne
asbestos exposure, and, moreover, the type of asbestos contained
in any component that was used in those products was protectively
encapsulated in other materials and is not associated with the
types of injuries alleged in the pending suits. Finally, in most
of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation
against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or
$25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

At December 31, 2013, there were 17,572 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against the Company. Of these cases, 17,135
were pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in
New York State. The other claims, totaling 437, were filed in
various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain
Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State
court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 27,148 cases.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However,
there have been developments during the past several years, both
by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which
could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these
asbestos claims in those jurisdictions. These developments include
procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage
requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow
specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of
damages before they can proceed with their claim. An example is
the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court),
which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending
within New York County in the State of New York. This Court issued
an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive
Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by
plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition. As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos
cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved
to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiffs can show
that they have incurred a physical impairment. At December 31,
2013, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 187 Active or
In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order
has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

Except with regard to the legal costs in a few limited,
exceptional cases, the Company's insurance carrier has paid all
legal and settlement costs and expenses to date related to the
Company's U.S. asbestos cases. The Company has liability insurance
coverage under various primary and excess policies that the
Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially
cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these
claims.

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. It is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and
proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury
litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company does not expect that
any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the
Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject to various other claims and legal
proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arose in the
ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, all
such matters are adequately covered by insurance or by established
reserves, and, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such
kind, or involve such amounts, as would not have a material
adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or
cash flows of the Company.

Insurance liabilities are recorded when it is probable that a
liability has been incurred for a particular event and the amount
of loss associated with the event can be reasonably estimated.
Insurance reserves have been estimated based primarily upon
actuarial calculations and reflect the undiscounted estimated
liabilities for ultimate losses, including claims incurred but not
reported. Inherent in these estimates are assumptions that are
based on the Company's history of claims and losses, a detailed
analysis of existing claims with respect to potential value, and
current legal and legislative trends. If actual claims differ from
those projected by management, changes (either increases or
decreases) to insurance reserves may be required and would be
recorded through income in the period the change was determined.
When a recognized liability is covered by third-party insurance,
the Company records an insurance claim receivable to reflect the
covered liability. Insurance claim receivables are included in
Other receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, to the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2013 for additional information on Accrued Insurance and Loss
Reserves.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products serving global
industries. The Company operates in four segments: Harsco Metals &
Minerals, Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Rail and Harsco
Industrial. The Company's principal lines of business include
outsourced, on-site services to steel mills and other metals
producers; resource recovery technologies for the re-use of
industrial waste stream by-products; industrial abrasives and
roofing granules; engineered scaffolding, concrete forming and
shoring, and other access-related services, rentals and sales;
railway track maintenance services and equipment; industrial
grating products; air-cooled heat exchangers, and heat transfer
products. In January 2014, the Company acquired Hammco Corp.


                             *********

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  * * *