CAR_Public/140530.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 107

                             Headlines


1ST UNITED: Being Sold to for Too Little, Class Action Claims
ABIOMED INC: Police Groups Appeal Impella-Related Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN IMPORTING: Recalls Mispacked Cinnamon Crunch Granola
AMERICAN WAFFLE: Recalls Gluten Free Blueberry Pancakes
BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Disputes Manner of Getting Consumer Reports

BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Affirms Investor Class Action Dismissal
BATS EXCHANGE: Fails to Provide Data Access, Suit Claims
BLUCORA INC: Faces "Sheets" Securities Suit in W.D. Washington
BLUE CROSS: Ordered to Reform Overpayment Policies in Class Suit
BNSF RAILWAY: Judge Approves $140MM Settlement to Landowners

BP PLC: Judge Certifies Class of Post-Explosion Investors
BP PLC: To Take Oil Spill Settlement Fight to Supreme Court
CANON INC: Faces Class Action Over Printers Giving Error Message
CATERPILLAR INC: Ex-Texaco Worker Files Asbestos Suit
CENTRAL BOEKI: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages for Unpaid Overtime

CROSSFIT ETHOS: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices
CSX CORP: Berkeley County Residents File Class Action
DENVER INSTITUTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Backpay and FLSA Damages
DEX MEDIA: Oral Argument to be Set in Lawsuit v. Pension Plans
DEX MEDIA: Writ Request in Dismissed Labor Suit Awaits Ruling

DEX MEDIA: Motion to Decertify FLSA Violation Suit Filed
DEX MEDIA: Inks Accord in SuperMedia Suit Over Retiree Plans
DIAMOND RESORTS: Hawaii Water Intrusion Assessment Down by $1.2MM
DORAL FINANCIAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Puerto Rico
EMPIRE STATE: No New Appeals Filed v. Rulings in Investor Lawsuit

EMPIRE STATE: Motion to Dismiss Suit by Former Investors Opposed
ENDEAVOR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Sydney Bushfire
EUGENE OREGON: Expands Nationwide Recall of Dietary Supplements
EVERGREEN FRESH: E. Coli Infection Linked to Raw Clover Sprouts
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Recalls 56 Lots of NaturaLyte(R) Concentrate

GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Court to Transfer Ignition Switch Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: 13 Deaths Linked to Defective Ignition Switches
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Defective AC Units
GOOGLE INC: Settles All But 1 Data Mining Putative Class Action
HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Rental Fee Class Action

HERTZ GLOBAL: Judge Remands Parking Ticket Fee Class Action
HINZ JJ: Sued by Delivery Drivers in Kansas Over FLSA Violations
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls One Lot of Labetalol Hydrochloride Injection
HUNGARY: Court Grants Motions to Dismiss in "Simon" Class Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Arizona

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Listerine Bogus Claims
KARMA CULTURE: Sued by Consumer of Karma Wellness Water Products
KIND HEALTHY: Recalls Pumpkin Seed Bars Due to Undeclared Peanuts
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Select Cottage Cheese Products
LANSAL INC: Recalls Hummus & Dip Products Due to Listeria Risk

MIDDLE EAST BAKERY: Recalls Dairy-free, Gluten-free Pancakes
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Football Players Sue Over Painkillers
NAVITAS NATURALS: Recalls Sprouted Chia Seed Powder Products
NEC CORP: Court Rejects Venue Transfer Bid in LCD Antitrust Suit
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective System Software

OCWEN LOAN: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
PERRIGO ISRAEL: Certification Hearing Held in Eltroxin Lawsuit
PET CENTER: Recalls 3 oz bag of Lamb Crunchy's Due to Salmonella
RITE AID: Court Revives Suit Over Lack of Seats for Cashiers
ROME PACKING: Recalls Minced Crab Meat Due to Listeria Risk

SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over "Imported from Italy" Olive Oil
SAM WON: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Dishwasher Claims
SCOTT A. TUCKER: Removed "Clark" Suit to C.D. Calif.
SHERMAN PRODUCE: Recalls Bulk & Packaged Walnuts Due to Listeria
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 2004 Owner-Operator Litigation Continues

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Files Writ to Resolve Issues in "Sheer"
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Drivers' Labor Lawsuit in Cal.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal v. "Montalvo" Certification Denied
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeals Driver Class in Wash. Overtime Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Reaches Settlement in Virginia FCRA Lawsuit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Utah Suit v. Central Refrigerated Continues
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Utah FLSA Suit for Collective Arbitration
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Central Refrigerated Rebuts Cal. Labor Suit
TARGET CORP: ISS Wants Shareholders to Vote Against 7 Directors
TRANS UNION: Court Narrows Claims in "Larson" Class Action

UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over Package Rates
US FOODSERVICE: Hunton & Williams Settles Class Suit for $297MM
VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Faulty Audi Brakes
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Shehan" Suit Alleging Telecom Act Violations
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Improper Credit Check

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Half Gallon Silk Light Original Soymilk
WPX ENERGY: Methodology in Determining Royalty Payments Accepted
WPX ENERGY: Still Faces Suits by Royalty Owners in N.M. Court
WPX ENERGY: Still Faces Suit by Natural Gas Buyers in Nev. Court
WPX ENERGY: Nevada Antitrust Suit Elevated to Supreme Court

* Justice Dep't Probes Price-Fixing, Bid Rigging in Auto Sector
* Number of Suits Over Mergers Bigger in 2013, Report Shows


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,280 Fibro Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Paid $930MM to WR Grace Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG's Liability for A&E Reserves was $384MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 127 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Recorded $284.3MM Fibro Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend NJ Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Had $36MM Reserves for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Continues to Pay Fibro-related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Unit Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Had $25.2-Mil A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torchmark Property Sale Eliminated Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: White Mountains Unit Had 2,023 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had $1.7-Bil. Net Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 98 Fibro Suits as of Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $382.4-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Fibro Suit Remains Pending Against Le@P
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Unit Had 53,000 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Estimates $1.7MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Companies Had 27 PI Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had $4.6-Mil. in A&E Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Financial Had $11.1MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Had 2,950 Cases Pending at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 PI Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had $53MM in Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,234 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance's A&E Reserves Total $9.6-Mil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Had 1,130 Fibro Suits Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Drug in Late-Stage Human Testing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Operator Says Fibro Brought Into Landfill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Presence at PTSC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Project Halted for Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Former Marks & Spencer Store
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Isle of Man Arsonists Issued with Fibro Warning

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holbury Campaigners Celebrate Fibro Removal Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Admits Bungling Fibro Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forbes Says 4th Cir. Decision Boon to Defendants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Actor's Widow Files Fibro Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Defense Counsel Asks Judge to Stay Order

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Exposure to Goodyear Gasket Overturned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Fibro Vinyl Floor Tile Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Drops Reinsurance Suit v. Excalibur
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Branchburg Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Comes Down on Business for Fibro Training

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Fibro Exposure at Kent Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Case Fails Tests, Pa. Court Holds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Judge Refuses to Move Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Building of New Aldi Halted Due to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Wins Damage Against Firm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Findings Over Mr. Fluffy Fibro Unveiled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Family Seeks Ex-Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dump in New South Wales Cleaned Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner Fears Home Will be Sold to Cover Damages

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk May Rise with Safety Body Abolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derbyshire Fibro Victims Urged to Speak Out
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Indicted In Illegal Fibro Abatement Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Jurors Award $6.5-Mil. in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Jurors Reach Defense Verdict in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Appeals for Help in Compensation Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Halted at Former King Fuels Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Training Company Pleads Guilty in Wash.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Underway in Stockton Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Facing Fibro Perjury Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Nearly Complete at Camsell Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Wins Access to Garlock Files
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bath Electrician Wins Fibro Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment for Goodyear Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Dumped at Carramara Playing Field

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Responsible for Fibro Dumped at Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roof Ruins Business, Says Mechanic
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Case Settles Following Bid to Vacate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Safety Upgrade for Fire Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland School Shut Down Over Fibro Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tilly Baily Sets Helpline for Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Pipe, Bricks Halt Troy Fibro Job
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Second Fibro Exposure Case Denied Remand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grammar School Admits Fibro Health Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Inspectors Plead Guilty to Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Offers Inside Look at Fibro Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Deceased Plumber Awarded $.65MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hunt for Serial Fibro Dumper Lake Macquarie
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Moriarty" House Cleared From Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney Denies Claims Against Watertown Man

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure May Have Killed New Malden Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined After Workforce Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Casa Grande Council to Vote on Grant in June
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Adds to Bell Vista Bridge Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Plea Over Death of Hull Man Mark Payne

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped at Vale Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Healthy Grandpa Misdiagnosed with Terminal Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds of Homes Built on Toxic Land
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medical Facilities for Ex-Mineworkers Set Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Removed at Mary Ingles Elementary

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Airport to Delay Construction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Companies Seek Garlock Fibro Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grundy County Looking for Fibro Removal Budget
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Under Way at NZ City Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NUTPLUG Found to Contain Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Stays Order Allowing Access to 2019 Filings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: COFO Building Found to Contain Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surgical Candidates Compare Mortality Rates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Version of Fibro Transparency Bill Emerges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Dismisal of "Andro" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Directed to Release Pathology Materials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Corley" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal Enlarged in 5 NYCAL Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver et al. Wins Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Jurisdiction Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Victim Allowed to Amend Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Reverses Ruling in "Ascione" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates' Bid to Stop Center's Renovations Denied


                            *********


1ST UNITED: Being Sold to for Too Little, Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling 1st
United Bancorp too cheaply through an unfair process to Valley
National Bancorp, for $312 million, in a stock and cash deal,
shareholders claim in a class action in Palm Beach County Court.


ABIOMED INC: Police Groups Appeal Impella-Related Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs -- the Fire and Police Pension Association of
Colorado and the City of Austin Police Retirement System -- in the
class action lawsuit captioned Simon, et al. v. Abiomed, Inc., et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
took an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit from a memorandum and an order, both entered on April 10,
2014, dismissing their case against Abiomed, Inc., et al.

The complaint rests principally on the allegation that Abiomed, a
manufacturer of medical devices, engaged in so-called "off-label"
marketing.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Abiomed
engaged in a scheme to market the Impella 2.5, a percutaneous
micro heart pump that provides circulatory support, for purposes
that had not been approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration and made misleading statements about those
practices.  This, according to the Plaintiffs, led to inflated
revenues and inflated stock prices, which ultimately fell when the
Company was forced to change its marketing practices.

Abiomed, Inc., develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices designed for circulatory support.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of
business in Danvers, Massachusetts.  Abiomed's main source of
revenue is the Impella 2.5, a percutaneous micro heart pump with
an integrated motor and sensors.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
          Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com
                  pegan@bermandevalerio.com
                  kmoody@bermandevalerio.com
                  dandrews@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
          10059 Northwest 1st Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com

The other Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Scott A. Mays, Esq.
          Leigh E. O'Neil, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  scott@blockesq.com
                  leigh@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Joseph Edward White, III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1154
          E-mail: lstern@bermanesq.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Daniel V. Ward, Esq.
          Elizabeth Downing Johnston, Esq.
          John D. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Mazzotta, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP - MA
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7703
          Facsimile: (617) 235-9766
          E-mail: daniel.ward@ropesgray.com
                  elizabeth.johnston@ropesgray.com
                  jdonovan@ropesgray.com
                  matthew.mazzotta@ropesgray.com

Movant Policemens Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago is
represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, CROSS AND MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar St.
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, 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

The appellate case is Fire and Police Pension Assoc., et al. v.
Abiomed, Inc, et al., Case No. 14-1502, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The original case is Simon, et
al. v. Abiomed, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-12137-FDS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston).


AMERICAN IMPORTING: Recalls Mispacked Cinnamon Crunch Granola
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Importing Co, Inc of Minneapolis, MN is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of packages of a single lot of Cinnamon
Crunch Granola because they may contain undeclared almonds. People
who have an allergy or sensitivity to almonds run the risk of
serious or lifethreatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

No adverse reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall is based on a discovery that a bag of Almond Vanilla
Granola was erroneously packed as Cinnamon Crunch Granola.

This product was distributed to PriceChoppers, FoodMaxx, & Russ
Davis in NY, CA, MN, WI & ND.

Product Information

The affected product is as follows:

22oz Printed Bag (UPC: 0 71725 72511 0)
Lot Code: 085X418
Best Buy: 03-26-15

Lot number can be found printed on the back of the bag in black
ink.

The label for this product also includes a statement "ALLERGY
INFORMATION: THIS PRODUCT IS PRODUCED ON EQUIPMENT SHARED WITH
PEANUT AND TREE NUT PRODUCTS."

IMPORTANT: This recall relates only to a single lot of Cinnamon
Crunch Granola. No other American Importing Co, Inc products are
affected.

Consumers who purchased affected product are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 855-273-0466. Please mention "Granola
Recall".


AMERICAN WAFFLE: Recalls Gluten Free Blueberry Pancakes
-------------------------------------------------------
American Waffle Company of Clayton, Delaware is voluntarily
recalling 480 cases of Gluten Free Blueberry Pancakes with Best By
or Sell By 07/31/15 because the product contains undeclared milk.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk may be at
risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The recalled 14.4 oz. LiveGfree Gluten Free Blueberry Pancakes
were distributed in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin and sold in ALDI Stores in
these States.

The product comes in 14.4 oz. box and marked with Best By or Sell
By 07/31/15 on the top or bottom display panel.

There was one reported illness and upon our investigation we found
that the product contained undeclared milk.

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
the milk-containing product was distributed in packaging that did
not declare the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
Company's production process.

Consumers who have purchased these LiveGfree Gluten Free Blueberry
Pancakes and consumers who have product affected by this voluntary
recall should discard it immediately or return it to their local
ALDI store for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the American Waffle Company
at awc@american-waffle.com or by calling (855) 384-9004, Monday-
Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST. During off hours, leave a voice mail and
it will be returned.


BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Disputes Manner of Getting Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kym Newton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, National Association, a North
Carolina Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03714-CBM-MRW (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2014) is brought as a nationwide
class action on behalf of all individuals, who executed online
authorization forms permitting the Defendant to obtain a consumer
report as part of the employment application process.

The lawsuit challenges the Defendant's alleged uniform policy to
obtain consumer reports on the basis of legally invalid
authorization form that contained language constituting a waiver
of claims against those who obtain the consumer reports.

Bank of America, National Association, is a North Carolina
Corporation doing business in California and throughout the United
States by operating numerous locations throughout the California
and the United States.  The Company is headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg Esq.
          GALLENBERG PC
          800 S Victory Blvd., Suite 203
          Burbank, CA 91502
          Telephone: (818) 237-5267
          Facsimile: (818) 330-5266
          E-mail: rosa@gallenberglaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Affirms Investor Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that in a
brief order issued on May 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ruled that Bank of America Corp. shareholders can't
pursue claims that the bank duped them about a massive impending
lawsuit from American International Group Inc. in 2011.  The
decision affirms a ruling by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in
Manhattan, who sided with BofA's lawyers at Munger Tolles & Olson
and Winston & Strawn and tossed the case last year.

AIG sued Bank of America in August 2011, seeking as much as $10.5
billion from the bank in what was then the biggest mortgage-backed
securities suit brought by a single plaintiff.  The insurance
giant claimed that BofA and its Merrill Lynch and Countrywide
Financial units fraudulently sold AIG about $28 billion in
securities backed by shoddy loans.  The case remains pending in
New York state court and in federal court in Los Angeles, where
U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer is presiding over nationwide
litigation related to Countrywide MBS. (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan represents AIG.)

The initial filing of AIG's suit helped spark a selloff by BofA
investors that sent the bank's shares plummeting by 20 percent in
a single day.  That got the attention of the securities class
action plaintiffs bar, and the bank was soon fighting claims that
it misled investors about the size and imminence of AIG's case.
In June 2012 Judge Koeltl appointed Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro
lead counsel for a proposed class of investors who bought BofA
shares between February and August 2011.

Judge Koeltl ultimately rejected the plaintiffs' claims in a
November 2013 ruling, finding that they failed to show that BofA
intended to deceive investors.  The bank disclosed in its February
2011 annual report that it was facing a smorgasbord of MBS-related
litigation, Judge Koeltl noted, and the most "compelling
conclusion" is that the bank believed it had no duty to report the
specifics of AIG's looming lawsuit.

The Second Circuit panel affirmed on Monday, ruling that even if
BofA hypothetically should have disclosed the potential AIG suit,
the complaint "does not plausibly allege circumstantial evidence
of conscious misbehavior."

Hagens Bergman's Jason Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- argued the
appeal opposite George Garvey -- George.Garvey@mto.com -- of
Munger Tolles.  The BofA defendants were also represented by
Munger's Marc Dworksy -- Marc.Dworsky@mto.com -- and by
Luke Connelly of Winston & Strawn.


BATS EXCHANGE: Fails to Provide Data Access, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that several exchanges failed to
provide market-data subscribers with nondiscriminatory access to
data as promised, a class claims in USDC Southern District of New
York.


BLUCORA INC: Faces "Sheets" Securities Suit in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrol A. Sheets, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Blucora, Inc., William J. Ruckelshaus, and
Eric M. Emans, Case No. 2:14-cv-00720-JLR (W.D. Wash., May 14,
2014) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose that Blucora's main Web
properties were tied to malware, viruses and browser hijackers
that attack computers.

Blucora is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices situated in Bellevue, Washington.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Blucora
operates Internet search, online tax preparation and e-commerce
businesses in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101-1170
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory Lewis Watts, Esq.
          Barry M. Kaplan, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI (WA)
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 883-2500
          Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
          E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com
                  bkaplan@wsgr.com


BLUE CROSS: Ordered to Reform Overpayment Policies in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2014 in federal court, BCBS Independence Blue Cross
(IBC) is permanently restrained and enjoined from issuing or
pursuing any demand for repayment, or offsetting any new claims
unless IBC fully complies with ERISA EOB and full and fair review
regulations.  IBC shall, within 150 days of the date of this
Order, reform its policies regarding repayment demands directed to
members of Plaintiff Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association (PCA).
ERISAclaim.com demystifies this court permanent injunction, as the
new federal overpayment laws, in provider's class action victory.

Case Info: Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association, et al. vs Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., Case: 1:09-cv-05619
Document #: 919 Filed: 05/19/14, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

ERISAclaim.com provided the plaintiff providers with ERISA appeal
compliance and ERISA litigation support in this provider ERISA
class action.

In this landmark decision against a BCBS entity, Independence Blue
Cross (IBC), "After a bench trial on December 2, 3, and 4, 2013,
the Court found in favor of the Pennsylvania Chiropractic
Association (PCA) on its ERISA claims against Independence Blue
Cross (IBC). See Pa. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
Ass'n, No. 09 C 5619, 2014 WL 1276585 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2014).
The Court also concluded that PCA is entitled to an appropriate
permanent injunction and directed the parties to brief "the
question of the precise contours the injunction should take." Id.
at *18. PCA has now submitted a proposed permanent injunction,
which requires IBC to provide ERISA-compliant notice and appeal
when demanding that a health care provider repay previously issued
health insurance benefits. For the reasons stated below, the Court
approves PCA's proposed injunction in part." according to court
document.

"This permanent injunction from the federal class action court
establishes the first and complete set of case laws for the
overpayment recoupment and offsetting denials, the No. 1 health
claim denials in USA", says Dr. Jin Zhou, president of
ERISAclaim.com, a national expert on ERISA and PPACA compliance,
for overpayment appeals.

"This permanent injunction is a huge victory not only for PCA
members but also for every patient and provider in USA. The court
finally provides all health plans with full ERISA guidelines as
intended by Congress", explains Dr. Zhou.

According to court documents, in addition to the permanent
injunction for IBC to fully comply with ERISA EOB and full and
fair review regulations: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendant
Independence Blue Cross (IBC) shall, within 150 days of the date
of this Order, reform its policies regarding repayment demands
directed to members of PCA as follows . . ." The court permanently
restrained and enjoined IBC from any overpayment recoupment and
offsetting unless IBC fully complies with ERISA regulations.

Foresters SMART universal life insurance.

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant IBC is permanently
restrained and enjoined from issuing or pursuing any demand for
repayment of benefits previously paid to a PCA member, including
offsetting any new claims based on an alleged overpayment, unless
IBC complies with the procedures outlined above," according to
court document.

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT after the procedures are applied
with regard to disputes raised by a PCA member concerning a
repayment demand, any determination reached by IBC that upholds
any portion of the repayment demand to the PCA member will
constitute a new adverse benefit determination under ERISA for
purposes of statutory or contractual limitations periods."
according to court document.

"More importantly, ObamaCare, PPACA, adopted ERISA claim
regulation in its entire for all health plans", says Dr. Zhou.

"(i) Minimum internal claims and appeals standards.  A group
health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group health
insurance coverage must comply with all the requirements
applicable to group health plans under 29 CFR 2560.503-1 . . .
with respect to health insurance coverage offered in connection
with a group health plan, the group health insurance issuer is
subject to the requirements in 29 CFR 2560.503-1 to the same
extent as the group health plan." according to PPACA regulations
for Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review.

ERISAclaim.com offers new basic and comprehensive ERISA and PPACA
overpayment appeals and litigation support programs, for all
hospitals, providers and healthcare attorneys.

To find out more about ERISA & PPACA Claims and Appeals Compliance
Services from ERISAclaim.com:
http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm

Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, for over 14 years,
ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing
and website resource for healthcare providers in the country.
ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced
educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification
programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well
as numerous pending national ERISA class action litigation
support.  Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of
ERISA claims" for healthcare providers.

For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of
ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.


BNSF RAILWAY: Judge Approves $140MM Settlement to Landowners
------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge approved a $140 million settlement to 500 property
owners in King County, Wash., whose BNSF rail easements were
converted to recreation trails.

The dispute dates back to BNSF's consent in 2008 for King County
for a "Rails-to-Trails" program, which would convert unused
railroad segments to hiking and biking trails rather than abandon
the rights of way.  The 1976 Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act authorized a rails-to-trails fund for
repurposing abandoned railway corridors.  Landowners affected by
the swap claimed they would otherwise have had free title to their
properties and were not fairly compensated for the taking.

Daniel and Kathy Haggart led a 2009 class action in the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims, alleging Fifth Amendment violations.  After
Judge Charles Lettow assigned the government some liability at
summary judgment, the parties reached a settlement that the U.S.
Attorney General's Office approved.  Lettow granted the deal final
approval last week.  He noted that the government and landowners
both appraised affected properties to reach the compensation
figure.  The government had emphasized at a settlement it was
choosing to settle the case, but "not conceding liability."

In addition to a $137.9 million settlement fund, class counsel
will recover $2. 5 million in attorneys' fees and litigation
costs. Class counsel will also retain $33.1 million of the common
fund as a contingent fee, according to the order.

The property owners were represented by Baker Sterchi Cowden &
Rice of St. Louis, Mo.


BP PLC: Judge Certifies Class of Post-Explosion Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that BP investors can advance a class action accusing the company
of downplaying the scope of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a
federal judge ruled.

After the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and caught fire on
April 20, 2010, its Macondo well released nearly 5 million barrels
of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.  The disaster led dozens of
investors to file class actions against BP in Houston federal
court, alleging they bought shares due to false statements made by
BP executives.

Beginning in 2007, such statements convinced the market that BP
was committed to keeping its workers safe, the investors claimed.
Investors also accused BP directors of publicly lowballing the
rate of the oil spill to prevent share prices from hitting a level
that accurately reflected the spill's size.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison refused to certify a class
action in December, finding the plaintiffs had not given enough
specifics on how to determine classwide damages.  At Ellison's
urging the plaintiffs went back to the drawing board and divided
their class into "pre-explosion and post-explosion subclasses."

The pre-explosion plaintiffs argued that BP's misstatements about
its safety culture prevented them from divesting their BP shares
before the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Ellison found the
methodology used by the pre-explosion plaintiffs to calculate
their damages lacking, however, and denied them class
certification.

The post-explosion litigants were more persuasive in arguing that
BP's understatements about the spill's size had caused an
artificial delay in the stock price falling, according to the May
20 ruling.  Ellison certified the class as all people or entities
who bought BP stock between April 26, 2010, and May 28, 2010,
excluding BP executives, their families and affiliates.


BP PLC: To Take Oil Spill Settlement Fight to Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that BP PLC will take its bid to enforce its interpretation of the
Deepwater Horizon oil-spill settlement to the U.S. Supreme Court.

BP announced the move on May 21, on the heels of the refusal by
the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rehear
panel decisions in a pair of appeals over the settlement, which
the company estimates is now worth $9.2 billion.  BP also plans to
ask the Fifth Circuit to hold off issuing a mandate so that
payments to claimants do not go forward until the U.S. Supreme
Court can render a decision.

"If the Fifth Circuit's erroneous ruling were allowed to stand, it
would fundamentally redefine the prerequisites for class
membership," BP said in a prepared statement.  "That, in turn,
will surely alter the calculus for companies in determining
whether to enter into class action settlements or engage in
protracted litigation that would delay compensation for true
victims. . . . No company would agree to pay for losses that it
did not cause, and BP certainly did not when it entered into this
settlement."

BP alleges that claims administrator Patrick Juneau has
misinterpreted the settlement's terms so that businesses that
suffered no economic damages from the 2010 spill are collecting
billions of dollars.  On May 19, the en banc Fifth Circuit, ruling
on two appeals, concluded that both sides had agreed upon specific
criteria to determine who gets paid and that Juneau's policies are
in line with those terms.

BP called the panel "sharply divided," noting that dual dissenting
opinions by Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement "reflect a deep
divide in approaches among the federal appellate courts, and merit
Supreme Court review."  The actual vote was 8-5 against rehearing.


CANON INC: Faces Class Action Over Printers Giving Error Message
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Canon sold defective printers
that give users the error message, "U052 Wrong Printhead Error," a
class action claims in Federal Court in Central Islip, N.Y.


CATERPILLAR INC: Ex-Texaco Worker Files Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a man is suing over
claims his lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure.

Richard and Catherine Bradley filed a lawsuit May 7 in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against Caterpillar Inc., Ford
Motor Company, Kohler Company and dozens of other companies,
citing asbestos exposure.

According to the complaint, on Feb. 28, 2013, Richard Bradley was
diagnosed with lung cancer, which he subsequently learned was
caused by exposure from the use of products designed,
manufactured, sold and marketed by the defendant companies in his
occupation as a Texaco worker and a residential carpenter.

The Bradleys are seeking more than $50,000 in damages.  They are
being represented in the case by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry
Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates P.C.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 14L319.


CENTRAL BOEKI: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages for Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tatsuya Komuro Individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Central Boeki (USA) Ltd., Michiaki Isoda and
Hiroyuki Tanida, Case No. 1:14-cv-03035-SLT-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 14,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is are entitled to (i) unpaid
wages for overtime work for which he did not receive overtime
premium pay, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Central Boeki is a New York corporation with a principal place of
business in Maspeth, New York.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, officers, shareholders, and managers of Central Boeki.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


CROSSFIT ETHOS: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Crossfit franchise bills
customers until they affirmatively cancel the services, without
disclosing such billing practices clearly on its contracts, a
class claims.


CSX CORP: Berkeley County Residents File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
WCIV reports that residents of Berkeley County affected by a
bridge collapse due to a train derailment have filed for a class
action lawsuit against the rail company seeking damages for the
hardships that come from using the 22-mile detour.

For the last three weeks, folks who live around the Cypress Garden
bridge in Moncks Corner have dealt with the detour.

Department of Transportation officials say a CSX train derailment
forced the bridge to collapse.

"We're talking about gas money but also time," said Christopher
Biering, an attorney representing 60 people in a potential class
action suit.  "You're talking about people who have to get up
normally at 4 or 5 a.m. having added to their weeks, five to ten
hours of commuting per week.  So, you are taking five to ten hours
away from families."

On May 16, Mr. Biering filed a lawsuit against CSX Transportation.

"The claim that we have brought is based in negligence.  That's
the first cause of action," said Mr. Biering.

According to the lawsuit, CSX failed to operate and maintain the
rail line and train through the area, which led to the derailment
and destruction of the bridge.  Department of Transportation
officials said it could take months to design, contract, and build
a new Cypress Gardens Road bridge.

"The second cause of action is based on a statute, 57-7-240, that
provides for a statutorily prescribed penalty, not to exceed a
certain amount but not less than a certain amount per day, per
person," he added.

The lawsuit states the "defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs
and each person similarly situated, on a daily basis, a sum not
exceeding $20, but not less than $5 per day for each person who
continues to be prevented from travel across the bridge because of
the obstructed of the roadway."

Mr. Biering says a judge will now decide whether or not to certify
the case as a class action.

"We believe and we pled in our complaint that the potential class
is likely in the 3,000 (person) range," said Mr. Biering.

Mr. Biering says CSX has 30 days to respond to the complaint.

Officials at CSX only said the company does to comment on pending
litigation.


DENVER INSTITUTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Backpay and FLSA Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ortega, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons v. Denver Institute L.L.C., d/b/a Aveda Institute Denver,
a Nevada limited liability company; and Dale L. LeMonds, Case No.
1:14-cv-01351-MEH (D. Colo., May 14, 2014) seeks to recover
damages and backpay to compensate all current and former student-
employees of Aveda pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Denver Institute L.L.C is a Nevada limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado.  Dale
L. LeMonds is the owner and executive director of the Aveda
Institute Denver.  Aveda operates a for-profit training program
for potential cosmetologists and estheticians.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Collins, CO 80524
          Telephone: (970) 212-4665
          Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
          E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF LEON GREENBERG
          2965 South Jones Boulevard E-4
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383-6085
          Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
          E-mail: LeonGreenberg@OvertimeLaw.com


DEX MEDIA: Oral Argument to be Set in Lawsuit v. Pension Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
The briefing of an appeal against a summary judgment granted to
defendants in a suit against the employee benefits committee and
pension plans of Verizon Communications Inc. and the employee
benefits committee and pension plans of SuperMedia Inc. is
complete and oral argument will be scheduled, according to Dex
Media Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On November 25, 2009, three retirees brought a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee
benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon and the employee
benefits committee ("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia.  All
three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to
SuperMedia pension plans at or near the SuperMedia's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both
the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary
duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other
class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The
plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages
and a reversal of the employee transfers.  The SuperMedia
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on
March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the
pending motion dismissing all the claims against the SuperMedia
pension plans and all of the claims against SuperMedia's EBC
relating to the production of documents and statutory penalties
for failure to produce same. The only claims that remained against
SuperMedia were procedural ERISA claims against SuperMedia's EBC.
On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the
complaint. On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to
dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against
the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs obtained
class certification against the Verizon defendants. After
obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed another
amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against
SuperMedia's EBC. SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before
the deadline set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the
court denied SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss. On September
16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' summary judgments,
denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment, and entered a take
nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC. Plaintiffs filed
an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. The briefing is complete and oral argument will be
scheduled. The Company plans to honor its indemnification
obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants'
behalf.


DEX MEDIA: Writ Request in Dismissed Labor Suit Awaits Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the Petition to the United States Supreme Court for
Writ of Certiorari in a suit by a former employee of SuperMedia
Inc. in relation to the dismissal of the case is complete but an
order of the court is yet to be made, according to Dex Media
Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against SuperMedia, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current
and former officers, directors and members of SuperMedia's EBC.
The complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to the various
savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach of
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by the defendants in
administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009.
The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed
all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the
defendants made material misrepresentations regarding SuperMedia's
financial performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had
divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets,
and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and
inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation
expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. SuperMedia filed a
motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010. On March
16, 2011, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' motion to
dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs have
repleaded their complaint. SuperMedia's defendants filed another
motion to dismiss the new complaint. On March 15, 2012, the court
granted the SuperMedia defendants' second motion dismissing the
case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. On
July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On July 23,
2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied. The
plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court. Briefing on the petition is complete and the
company awaits the order of the court.


DEX MEDIA: Motion to Decertify FLSA Violation Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
SuperMedia Inc. filed a motion to decertify a suit filed by
several former employees alleging Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to Dex Media Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia, all
its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the
former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The complaint alleges
that SuperMedia improperly calculated the rate of pay when it paid
overtime to its hourly sales employees. On July 29, 2011,
SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response,
the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the
individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims for unpaid
overtime. Subsequently, SuperMedia amended its motion to dismiss
in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective
action and to issue notice. On March 29, 2012, the court denied
the SuperMedia's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs'
motion to conditionally certify the class. SuperMedia's motion
seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order
was denied and a notice has been sent to SuperMedia's former and
current employees. The time for opting into the class has expired.
On February 24, 2014, SuperMedia filed a motion to decertify. The
plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a
companion case with the same allegations.


DEX MEDIA: Inks Accord in SuperMedia Suit Over Retiree Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division approved a settlement reached in a suit filed by
SuperMedia Inc. in relation to the management of its retiree
health and welfare benefit plans, according to Dex Media Inc.'s
May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
where SuperMedia seeks a declaratory judgment approving
SuperMedia's right to enact several amendments that were made to
its retiree health and welfare benefit plans, and more generally
SuperMedia's right to modify, amend or terminate these plans.
Several of the defendants filed motions to dismiss as well as a
counterclaim. SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim. On August 8, 2013, the court granted several of the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the defendants'
counterclaim. SuperMedia settled this matter favorably after
mediation. The court on January 10, 2014, preliminarily approved
the settlement, ordered notice to the entire settlement class. On
April 22, 2014, the court approved the settlement and entered an
order confirming SuperMedia's right to enact the amendments to the
retiree health and welfare benefit plans.


DIAMOND RESORTS: Hawaii Water Intrusion Assessment Down by $1.2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Resorts International, Inc.'s original share of the
assessment levied by the homeowners association (HOA) of one of
the managed resorts in Hawaii to the owner-families of that resort
for water intrusion damage was reduced by $1.2 million, according
to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In October 2011, the HOA of one of the company's managed resorts
in Hawaii levied an assessment to the owner-families of that
resort for water intrusion damage. The original amount of the
assessment was $65.8 million but, in connection with the
settlement of a class action, the assessment was reduced to $60.9
million. For deeded inventory or Collection points held by the
company at the time of the assessment, the company owed $9.7
million of the original assessment. The company's original share
of the assessment was subsequently reduced by $1.2 million, which
will be recorded upon the receipt of the cash refund from The HOA.
This assessment is payable in annual installments over five years.
In addition, pursuant to the related class action settlement, the
company agreed to pay any amount of assessments defaulted on by
owners in return for the company's recovery of the related VOIs.
The company expects to fund any future installment payments, and
payments of assessments defaulted on by owners, from operating
cash flows.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 20 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Doral Financial Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Puerto Rico, and docketed under 3:14-cv-01414,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Doral securities between April 2,
2012 and May 1, 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 Doral securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 14, 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.

Doral was organized in 1972 under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and operates as a bank holding company.  Doral's
principal operations are conducted in Puerto Rico, with growing
operations in the United States, specifically in the New York City
metropolitan area, as well as in northwest and south Florida.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed to
disclose adverse facts, including that: (a) the Company had a
material weakness in its internal controls over financial
reporting and disclosure controls, and that such controls were
ineffective; (b) the Company had understated its loan reserves;
and (c) as a result of having understated its loan loss reserves,
the Company's assets were overstated, its expenses were
understated, its net income was overstated, and Doral Bank did not
meet its Tier I regulatory capital requirements as stated
throughout the Class Period.

On March 18, 2014, Doral notified the SEC that it was unable to
timely file its annual financial report for fiscal 2013.  On this
news, the price of Doral common stock dropped more than $1 per
share, closing down at $11.17 per share on March 18, 2014, from
its close the prior evening of $12.30 per share.

On Friday March 21, 2014, after the close of trading, Doral issued
a press release and filed its annual financial report with the SEC
on Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2013.  On this
news, the price of Doral common stock declined from its close of
$11.55 per share on the evening of March 21, to close at $10.76
per share on Monday, March 24th.

On May 1, 2014, the Company announced that it has been advised by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") that the
bank could not include some or all of its tax receivables from the
Puerto Rican government in its calculation of Tier 1 capital.
Puerto Rico tax receivables accounted for $289 million of the
bank's approximately $679 million of Tier 1 Capital as of
December 31, 2013.  On this news, shares of Doral fell $6.09, or
more than 62%, on intraday trading to $3.73, on unusually heavy
trading volume on May 2, 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.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


EMPIRE STATE: No New Appeals Filed v. Rulings in Investor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No other appeals against rulings in the "Original Class Actions"
by investors were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the
appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order, according to Empire
State Realty Trust, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the "Original Class
Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County by investors in certain of the existing entities
(constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities)
(the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March
12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs
asserted claims against the company's predecessor's management
companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona
M. Helmsley, the company's operating partnership and the company
for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other
things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by
which it was structured (including the valuation that was
employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities,
the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings
LLC (now the company's subsidiary) and its affiliates and the
then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the
consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate
disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the
consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive
relief preventing the consolidation. The Original Class Actions
were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel were appointed
by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012.
Furthermore, an underlying premise of the Original Class Actions,
as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants'
counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a
manner that would cause investors in Empire State Building
Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West
57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs") immediately to
incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The
Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was
approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing
entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for
the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of
the named class representatives intends to support the
consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further
states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the
claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures,
appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be
consolidated into the company's company, and the interests of the
investors in the existing entities, have been addressed
adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant
to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the
proposed consolidation on the basis of revised consent
solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best
interests of the plaintiff class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.
The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and
maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or
freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed,
after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million
settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock
and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of
specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities
pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for
plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would
be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during
the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage
of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by
defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total
gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering,
defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further
approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to
make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation
with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which
are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not
be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The
payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made
by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin
Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's
affiliates that would become the company's direct or indirect
subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such
payment) and certain investors, in the existing entities who agree
to contribute. The company will not bear any of the settlement
payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and
other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of
the members of the class against the defendants and related
persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors.

The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including
but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any
supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is
declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in
writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed,
so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to
review such supplement. There was no such supplement that
plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was
subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court
approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal.
Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to
preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original
Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on
behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such
objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such
objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the
Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely
to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-
consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of
"fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability
Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion
that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.
Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability
Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that
such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and
that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New
York Limited Liability Company Law.

On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of
which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.
On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court
rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement
in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are
investors in all of the existing entities included in the
consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out
will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can
pursue separate claims for monetary damages. They are bound by the
settlement agreement regarding equitable relief, so they cannot
seek an injunction to halt the consolidation or the Offering. The
settlement will not become final until resolution of any appeal.

Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on
attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0
million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced
to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are
included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice
of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before
the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the
settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On
May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was
denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in
opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the
appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013,
these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on
their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to
perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC
filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the
appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue
it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not
entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company
Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have
such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or
consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in
those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building
Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company,
the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply.

Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors
who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue
appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of
(and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing)
any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six
investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact
opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013,
these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed
the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC
filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3,
2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without
prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal,
effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel
that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument
on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February
25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court's ruling.

In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one
additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the
Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the
trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices
of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013
granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action
settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the
order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order
to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the
consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the
motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf
of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the
order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show
cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out
of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment
and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17,
2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the
order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss
these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely
perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6,
2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are
perfected by March 17, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout
provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the
alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the
New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on
April 7, 2014, and it is awaiting a ruling from the court. The
company cannot predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings,
or, if a motion for leave is granted, the appeal process or any
related relief, if such further appeal were successful. If the
trial and appeals courts' decisions were reversed by the Court of
Appeals, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse
effect on the company, which could take the form of monetary
damages or other equitable relief, and the court could order some
or all of the relief that the objecting investors have requested.
Although there can be no assurance, the company believes that the
trial and appeals courts' decisions were correct, that they will
be upheld on any further appeal.

On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class
Actions noted, perfected an appeal from the court's May 17, 2013
Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class
Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and
costs. Responses to this appeal were filed April 16, 2014. The
company cannot predict the timing or outcome of an appeal. If the
court's decision were reversed by an appellate court, there is a
risk that it could have a material adverse effect on the company,
including the imposition of monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both. Although there can be no assurance, the company believes
that the trial court's decision was correct, and that it will be
upheld on appeal. No other appeals were filed by the March 17,
2014 deadline set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014
order.


EMPIRE STATE: Motion to Dismiss Suit by Former Investors Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss a suit filed on behalf of
former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., which
the plaintiffs opposed, according to Empire State Realty Trust,
Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class
actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York
State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC,
Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on
behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates
L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly
enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named the company and
the company's operating partnership as defendants, alleging that
they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second
Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class
counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which
did not name the company or the company's operating partnership as
defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On March 7, 2014,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions,
which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court
on April 28, 2014. The company cannot predict the outcome of the
motion (or if the motion is not granted, the outcome of the Second
Class Actions).

The company will incur costs in connection with this litigation.
If the court were to rule against the defendants there is a risk
that it could have a material adverse effect on the company, which
could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief.

In connection with the Offering and formation transactions, the
company entered into indemnification agreements with the company's
directors, executive officers and chairman emeritus, providing for
the indemnification by the company for certain liabilities and
expenses incurred as a result of actions brought, or threatened to
be brought, against them. As a result, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L.
Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. have defense and indemnity
rights from the company with respect to the Second Class Actions.


ENDEAVOR ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Sydney Bushfire
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Mills, writing for DailyMail, reports that the destruction
caused by last year's catastrophic Sydney bushfire, which burnt-
down 400 homes in the Blue Mountains, could have been prevented if
a tree which sparked the blaze was properly trimmed, residents
allege.

A class action case has been brought before the NSW Supreme Court
with Madden Lawyers, who will allege that power company Endeavor
Energy failed to cut back overgrown trees which fell onto a power
pole, sparking the blaze.

The firm's senior partner Brendan Pendergast said the company, and
not residents, should be made to pay for the destruction which
tore through the Springwood and Winmalee areas and left residents
homeless.

He said: "The Springwood and Winmalee fire started when poorly-
maintained trees fell onto electrical conductors in Linksview
Road, Springwood" on October 17 last year.

The main focus of the class action case was to recoup the damages
allegedly caused by Endeavor Energy for the affected homeowners.

"We believe there are five to six hundred people affected and we
believe that the total quantum of loss is going to be in the order
of $200 million," he told reporters.

"Quite simply, the residents of this area have suffered losses
that are not their fault."

"They are losses that would not have occurred had the right
procedures been followed."

He said there is no reason these residents should sit back and
just accept that this fire occurred, and pay for the damages
caused.  He said the class action was a secure and low-risk means
for the residents and businesses affected by the fire to claim
losses that insurance policies did not cover.

"We've successfully settled class actions for four different
communities that were burnt out during the Black Saturday
bushfires of February 7 2009."

In all four cases, the fires were the result of poorly-maintained
power lines, or surrounding infrastructure, combining with extreme
weather conditions to ignite a fire."

In last year's fires strong winds fueled the blaze with weeks of
harrowing conditions adding to its ferocity in the Winmalee and
Springwood regions.  There were a number of other, smaller fires
which broke out across NSW, but it was the Blue Mountains blaze
which caused the most heartache for residents -- destroying about
200 homes and damaging a further 200 more.

Residents banded together in the days during and after the blaze
to help with the massive cleanup -- estimated to cost more than
$100 million.  It drew one of the largest firefighting contingents
ever to be assembled in NSW, with crews battling an active 1500-
kilometre fire edge at its peak.  It led Former Premier Barry
O'Farrell to declare a state of emergency for the region, and the
state's fire boss, Shane Fitzsimmons, called it an unparalleled
natural disaster: "This is unparalleled in terms of fire activity,
in terms of damage and destruction, in terms of multi-agency
inter-jurisdictional assistance coming to bear so early in the
season."


EUGENE OREGON: Expands Nationwide Recall of Dietary Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Oregon, Inc. of Levittown, Pennsylvania is voluntarily
expanding the recall of the following products to the consumer
level:

Product  Lot                       Packaging     Quantity
Name     Number     Packaging      Coloring      Per Package
-------  ------     ---------      ---------     -----------
African   ALL        Small boxes    Red,          6 capsules
Black                inside         black, and    per box,
Ant                  large box      silver        8 boxes per
                                                  display
                                                  unit.

Black     ALL        Small boxes/   Green         4 capsules
Ant                  tins inside                  per small
                     large box                    box,
                                                  20 boxes
                                                  display unit.
                                                  Also
                                                  packaged in
                                                  10 tablets
                                                  and 10
                                                  capsules in
                                                  a metal tin.

Mojo      ALL        Envelopes      Red and       2 capsules
Risen                inside box     White         per envelope,
                                                  24 envelopes
                                                  per display
                                                  box.

This recall is a revised version of the recall issued on May 5,
2014 and is revised to reflect the recall of ALL LOTS of the
recalled products. Misinformation about the Black Ant product
codes and packaging description may have been included in the
original press release and this information is intended to clarify
any ambiguity and expand the recall to all lots of all recalled
products.

Eugene Oregon, Inc. is voluntarily conducting this recall because
FDA analysis of these products distributed to a third party
revealed that the distributed products contained undeclared
amounts of the active pharmaceutical ingredients sildenafil and
tadalafil -- FDA-approved pharmaceutical ingredients used to treat
erectile dysfunction. Conclusive testing has not been done to
confirm that the recalled products do, in fact, contain sildenafil
and/or tadalafil and this recall is being executed as a
precautionary measure.

Sildenafil and tadalafil can pose a threat to consumers because
they can interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs
(such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous
levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, and heart disease often take nitrates. To date,
Eugene Oregon, Inc. has not received any reports of adverse events
related to this recall.

These products are marketed as dietary supplements for sexual
enhancement and packaged in tins, envelopes, and/or boxes and were
distributed to consumers nationwide at retail stores. Eugene
Oregon, Inc. has discontinued the distribution of these products
and is notifying its distributors by mail of this voluntary
recall. Consumers that possess these products should stop using
them immediately and can return the products to Eugene Oregon,
Inc., 922 S. Woodbourne Rd. #304, Levittown, PA 19057-1001.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Eugene
Oregon, Inc. by telephone at 1-800-538-3411 from Monday through
Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST.

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to using
these products. Consumers can report adverse reactions or quality
control problems to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program as follows:

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

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


EVERGREEN FRESH: E. Coli Infection Linked to Raw Clover Sprouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Landau, writing for CNN, reports that seven confirmed
and three likely cases of E. coli infection linked to raw clover
sprouts have been reported, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention said on May 22.

The patients are all in either Idaho or Washington.  Half the
people who have fallen ill have been hospitalized.

Preliminary investigations indicate the likely source of this
outbreak are raw clover sprouts produced by Evergreen Fresh
Sprouts LLC of Idaho, the CDC said.  The state departments of
health in Washington and Idaho are telling consumers not to eat
raw clover sprouts produced by Evergreen Fresh Sprouts.
Meanwhile, hummus and dip products totaling about 14,860 pounds
are being voluntarily recalled by Lansal Inc. amid concerns about
possible bacterial contamination.

At the same time, Sherman Produce is recalling some bulk and
packaged walnuts sold to retailers in Missouri and Illinois.
These two recalls are precautionary measures against possible
Listeria monocytogenes, which may cause serious and even fatal
infections in people with weakened immune systems, such as the
elderly.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with either recall,
the respective companies said.

Both companies advise consumers who bought the recalled products
to throw them out or return them for a full refund.  The products
should not be eaten.

Also last week, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service said
1.8 million pounds of ground beef products were being recalled
because they could be contaminated with a strain of E.coli.

Consequences of food-borne bacteria

Escherichia coli is a large group of bacteria; most are harmless,
while some can cause serious illness.  The strain involved in the
sprout-linked outbreak is Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli
O121.
E. coli infection can lead to severe diarrhea, abdominal pain and
vomiting, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Most people recover within seven days, but some have severe
complications, the CDC said.  A type of kidney failure called
hemolytic-uremic syndrome may result; the elderly and children
under 5 are most at risk.

Most listeria infections may not be noticed because the symptoms
are mild, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Symptoms of a listeria infection in an otherwise healthy person
include fever, muscle aches, stiff neck, headache, loss of balance
and convulsions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Diarrhea or other gastrointestinal problems may occur
before these symptoms.

Pregnant women infected with listeria may suffer miscarriages,
premature delivery or stillbirths.  The newborn may have a serious
infection if the mother has been sick with it.

Why sprouts?

Harmful germs can live days on airplanes 1.8M pounds of ground
beef recalled

Evergreen Fresh Sprouts was also involved in a 2011 salmonella
outbreak.  Consumers then were discouraged from eating the brand's
alfalfa sprouts and spicy sprouts.

Sprouts have a history of being involved in bacterial infection
outbreaks.

According to a study commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, the warm, moist conditions that are conducive to
growing bumper crops of sprouts are also an ideal breeding ground
for bacteria.

In the study, Kevin Allen, a microbiology professor at the
University of British Columbia, tested 44 samples of prepackaged
sprouts (as well as 48 samples of leafy greens and 58 samples of
various herbs) and found, "Over 78% of sprouts had levels of
microorganisms too numerous to count."

Why sprouts make you sick

Hummus and dips

In the case of Lansal, the Texas Department of Health identified
the potential for listeria contamination while routinely testing a
Target Archer Farms Traditional Hummus product.

"Lansal Inc. is voluntarily recalling all products manufactured at
the same facility and distributed to both wholesalers and
retailers during the same time," the company said.

Included in this recall are some Target Archer Farms hummus
products nationwide.  Certain Giant Eagle hummus products in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Maryland are also affected.
Trader Joe's 5 Layered Dip, both large and small, with a use-by
date of April 15 is being recalled in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio
and Wisconsin.

The 8-ounce container of Trader Joe's Edamame Hummus is recalled
in 17 states with use-by dates of April 28, April 29 and May 9.
Some plastic containers of Tryst Yellow Lentil Hummus with
Sunflower Seeds & Apricots are also affected.

"Lansal Inc. has contacted all impacted retail customers and
distributors instructing them to remove all affected product from
sale and is working with the appropriate agencies including state
departments of health, the Food and Drug Administration and local
authorities," the company said.

The Lansal consumer question line is 877-550-0694.

Walnuts

Sherman Produce said it was recalling "241 cases of bulk walnuts
packaged in 25 lb bulk cardboard boxes and Schnucks brand 10 oz
trays with UPC 00338390032 with best by dates 03/15 and 04/15."

An FDA sampling detected Listeria monocytogenes in walnuts at the
facility.

Sherman Produce can be reached for questions at 314-231-2896.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Recalls 56 Lots of NaturaLyte(R) Concentrate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) is voluntarily
recalling 56 lots of NaturaLyte(R) Liquid Bicarbonate Concentrate,
6.4 liters (intended for use in hemodialysis machines) from
distribution has been classified as a Class 1 Recall.

The affected lots were produced in its Montreal, Canada facility
and are being recalled because they may develop higher bacteria
levels than is allowed by the company's internal specification
during their shelf life.

Laboratory testing has identified the bacteria as Halomonas
(species 1, 2, 3), a Gram Negative bacteria, typically found in
water with high salinity (salt concentration). According to a few
case reports in the medical literature, bacterial contamination of
the dialysate may lead to bacteremia or systemic infection. The
dialysis filter (dialyzer) and the use of the Diasafe(TM) filter
or equivalent create an effective bacteria and endotoxin barrier
that makes this event unlikely.

Customer notifications were published on April 10th and May 1st,
2014. The customer notifications (available at www.fmcna.com)
include a list of the product lot numbers which should be
permanently removed from use and returned.

As part of its voluntary recall, the company informed the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada, as well as
its customers -- on April 10th and May 1st, 2014 -- about these
findings and promptly took steps to remove all of the affected
lots from distribution, and discontinue their use.

Customers are encouraged to contact the FDA through the following
means if they experience adverse reactions or quality problems
from using this product:

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

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

Customers can contact Fresenius Medical Care's customer service
teams at 1-800-323-5188 to report these issues, or if they have
additional questions.

Through its leading network of more than 2,150 dialysis facilities
in North America and vascular access centers, laboratory, pharmacy
and affiliated hospitals and nephrology practices, Fresenius
Medical Care provides renal services to hundreds of thousands of
people throughout the United States, Mexico and Canada. It is also
the continent's top producer of dialysis equipment, dialyzers and
related disposable products and a major supplier of renal
pharmaceuticals. For more information about the company, visit
www.fmcna.com   for information about patient services, visit
www.ultracare-dialysis.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Court to Transfer Ignition Switch Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Burden, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
General Motors Co. and Delphi Automotive Systems LLC have asked
the Supreme Court of Texas to transfer lawsuits filed in Texas
against them regarding defective ignition switches to a state
multidistrict litigation panel, a move that one Texas attorney
hopes to halt.

The Detroit automaker and supplier Delphi on May 20 asked for the
move to consolidate and coordinate pre-trials in alleged personal
injury or wrongful death cases, as the companies said they expect
additional cases will be filed.  The companies are asking for
trial proceedings to stop until the panel decides whether to
consolidate.

"Litigating each of these matters separately will involve enormous
time and expense," GM and Delphi said in the filing.

"As we state in our filing: 'Absent transfer to a single judge,
defendants may face the burden of producing some of the same
witnesses and documents in separate proceedings governed by
different, and possibly conflicting, pretrial rulings,'" GM
spokesman Greg Martin said in a statement. "'. . . This waste of
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary is
unnecessary.  The appointment of a single pretrial judge to hear
common pretrial issues will facilitate the uniform and fair
resolution of the ignition switch actions, and will promote the
just and efficient conduct of those actions.'"

Texas attorney Bob Hilliard is seeking to depose GM's general
counsel Michael Millikinin one of the lawsuits.  He calls the
request by GM and Delphi a tactic to stall and that it delays
"justice for victims."

"As soon as I ask for GM to make its general counsel, Millikin,
immediately available for deposition to get to the bottom of this
coverup and to hopefully shed some light on the issue of whether
and for how long GM's legal department delayed immediate and
forthright disclosure of the defect so as to buy more time to
circle the wagons, GM delays the litigation," Mr. Hilliard said in
a statement.

GM and Delphi say in one case filed in April in Nueces County,
plaintiffs have served 30 deposition notices including of GM
executives and Mr. Millikin.

GM recalled 2.59 million older Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and
other cars earlier this year for defective ignition switches.  The
company says the switches, which can move from the "run" to
"accessory" or "off" position while driving, are linked to 13
deaths.

The company faces numerous lawsuits across the country related to
the defects and is being investigated by Congress, the Justice
Department, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and at least
one state attorney general.  The company also has an internal
investigation underway being led by former U.S. Attorney Anton
Valukus that is expected to wrap up within a few weeks.


GENERAL MOTORS: 13 Deaths Linked to Defective Ignition Switches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lienert, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. safety
regulators said on May 23 that it is likely that more than 13
people died in General Motors cars recalled earlier this year for
defective ignition switches.

The automaker told Reuters it had raised the number of crashes
associated with faulty ignition switches but stood by its count
for the number of fatalities.

GM recalled 2.6 million older models, including Chevrolet Cobalt
and Saturn Ion, to replace defective switches that can cause
engines to shut off while driving, leading to a sudden loss of
power steering, power brakes and the failure of air bags to deploy
in a crash.

GM has linked the switch to 13 deaths in cars built and sold
between model years 2003-2010.  It has never fully explained how
it arrived at the figure.

Spokesman Jim Cain on May 23 said that GM recently informed
regulators that it had identified about a dozen more crashes
connected with the ignition switch in addition to the previous 35
in had counted.

In response to a query from Reuters, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) on May 23 said, "The final death
toll associated with this safety defect is not known to NHTSA, but
we believe it's likely that more than 13 lives were lost."

The agency added: "GM would be in the position to determine
additional cases related directly to this defect based on
lawsuits, incident claims and additional data reported directly to
the automaker from its customers, dealerships, insurance
companies, safety groups and other sources."

Mr. Cain responded, "To the best of our knowledge, there have been
13 fatalities that may be related to the ignition switch defect.
That's after a thorough analysis of the information available to
us.  If we come across new information, of course, we will share
it with the agency.  We're totally focused on fixing all of the
cars as quickly as we can."

Mr. Cain said GM determined the fatalities "by assessing the
detailed information in the claims data available to us,"
including information in lawsuits and complaints.

The determination also was based on "engineering expertise in both
air bag deployment and electrical systems," he added.

In March, the independent Center for Auto Safety, a Washington-
based watchdog group, said its research had determined that 303
people had died when airbags failed to deploy in the recalled GM
cars.

When the CAS research was released, GM said that the group's
report was based on "raw data" and "without rigorous analysis, it
is pure speculation to attempt to draw any meaningful
conclusions."

GM also has not identified the fatal victims from recalled cars.
NHTSA said it "has been assisting families by identifying whether
or not their loved ones are in the number counted by GM."


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Defective AC Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Goodman Manufacturing makes
defective air-conditioning units under the Goodman and Amana names
whose evaporator coils crack and leak, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Birmingham, Ala.


GOOGLE INC: Settles All But 1 Data Mining Putative Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
just a single set of litigants remains after settlements whittled
down a sprawling group of class actions over alleged Gmail data
mining, Google lawyers said.

Privacy-policy updates in 2012 drew a tsunami of class actions
from across the nation that accused Google of aggregating the
information it collects from users of its various apps and
platforms.  The plaintiffs in those cases claimed that the new
policy violates computer-fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws at
both state and federal levels.

In California, for instance, lead plaintiffs Brad Scott and Todd
Harrington said the web-based service scans emails for words and
content, and intentionally intercepts messages between non-Gmail
subscribers and subscribers.  But Google had furiously argued
against allowing any non-California plaintiffs to invoke the
state's privacy laws in making their cases.

The claims were eventually combined before U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh in San Francisco as In re Google, Inc. - Gmail
Litigation.  Koh refused to dismiss the massive putative class
action this past September because Gmail's interceptions fall
outside the narrow "ordinary course of business" exceptions carved
out of federal electronic-privacy laws.

A few months later, however, Koh found that Google's different
terms and policies for the classes and subclasses made the matter
impossible to litigate collectively.

With the case then broken into individual actions, and the 9th
Circuit's refusal to certify the class, Google lawyers announced
that all but one of the plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss the case.

"Stipulating plaintiffs and Google have each considered the
uncertainties of further litigation, trial and potential appeals
in this matter, the costs, risks and delays associated with the
litigation process, the benefits of the proposed settlement, and
the parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
their disputes," Google attorney Whitty Somvichian, of the firm
Cooley LLP, and three of the plaintiffs' lawyers said in a joint
filing.

Koh signed the stipulation almost immediately, and ordered court
staff to close the file.  The remaining plaintiff will proceed in
the case now titled A.K. v. Google, with a jury trial slated
to begin on Oct. 20.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed.  The settling
plaintiffs are represented by Sean Rommel of the firm Wyly-Rommel
in Texarkana, Texas, and F. Jerome Tapley of Cory Watson Crowder &
Degaris in Birmingham, Ala.


HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Rental Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey and Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, report that
Hertz Corp. on May 19 urged a Delaware federal judge to toss a
putative class action alleging it charged hidden fees for car
rentals in Mexico, saying the plaintiff is disputing statements
made instead by Hertz's co-defendant, travel booking service
Hotwire Inc.

Plaintiff Enrico Moretti's false advertising claims allege
misrepresentations and omissions during Hotwire's Web-based
reservation process, which defendants Hertz and subsidiary
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. did not participate in, Hertz
said on May 19 in support of its motion to dismiss the case
against it.

"According to the complaint, plaintiff interacted with defendant
Hotwire only during that reservation process," Hertz argued.
"Plaintiff does not allege that Hertz or [Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group] made any misrepresentations to him, or
communicated with him in any way, during the car reservation
process."

The May 19 motion, if successful, would leave Hotwire as the sole
defendant in the latest claim that it hid taxes and insurance fees
from users of its booking service.  The company settled a related
California case in March for $130,000.

Mr. Moretti filed his initial complaint in May 2013 in San
Francisco Superior Court.  He alleged he booked a Thrifty rental
car through Hotwire in December 2012, and was later charged $36
more than Hotwire's estimate because of an inflated exchange rate.
He also alleged he was forced to pay an additional $12 per day for
insurance.  He claimed Hertz, Dollar Thrifty and Hotwire violated
California false advertising laws and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, committed fraud and engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices.

The case was removed to San Francisco federal court in June and
transferred to Delaware in April.

In September, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled that
Mr. Moretti's case was related to another suit filed by plaintiff
Daniel Shahar, who alleged Hotwire omitted taxes and insurance
fees from its trip estimates.

Hotwire settled with Mr. Shahar in March for $130,000, also
agreeing to revise its website to better disclose taxes and
insurance fees.

In Hertz's brief in support of its motion to dismiss filed on
May 19, the car rental giant said it didn't make the disputed
statements and added that Mr. Moretti lacked standing to sue Hertz
just because it owns Dollar Thrifty.

"[Plaintiff's] claims against Hertz fail for the added reason that
Hertz does not feature in plaintiff's complaint in any way," Hertz
argued.  "Moreover, plaintiff may not, as a matter of law, sweep
Hertz into the case by attempting to tie Hertz to [Dollar Thrifty]
by conclusory pleadings."

Mr. Moretti is represented by Brian E. Farnan --
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- of Farnan LLP.

Hertz and Dollar Thrifty are represented by Ross B. Bricker --
rbricker@jenner.com -- John F. Ward Jr. -- jward@jenner.com -- and
Jeffrey A. Koppy -- jkoppy@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP, as
well as Raymond J. DiCamillo -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- and Susan M.
Hannigan -- hannigan@rlf.com -- of Richards Layton & Finger PA.

The case is Enrico Moretti et al. v. The Hertz Corporation et al.,
case number 1:14-cv-00469 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Judge Remands Parking Ticket Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a West Virginia
federal judge remanded to state court on May 19 a proposed class
action accusing Hertz Global Holdings Inc. of illegally charging
renters a handling fee after they independently paid off parking
tickets, saying Hertz hadn't proven that amount at stake in the
case exceeds $5 million.

Although Hertz provided affidavits claiming that the rental car
company had charged customers $5.6 million in "handling fees"
associated with parking citations, it hadn't proven that all of
those fees were charged to renters who had received a ticket and
had already paid the fine before Hertz demanded the fee, U.S.
District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers said in his ruling.

"Because defendants have not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the
jurisdictional requirements of [Class Action Fairness Act] are not
met," Judge Chambers wrote, remanding the case to the Circuit
Court of Wayne County, West Virginia.

James Pauley sued the company in November after renting a car and
receiving a parking ticket in Atlanta, Georgia, last August.  He
quickly paid the $35 fine, along with a $2.95 processing fee, but
then received a letter from Hertz saying he had to pay the fine
and a $30 "handling fee" for Hertz to deal with the ticket, court
records show.

The letter explained that the fee would cover Hertz's time
handling administrative tasks associated with transferring
liability for the citation from Hertz to Mr. Pauley.  Because
Pauley had already taken care of the citation, and because the
city of Atlanta doesn't have a transfer of liability process,
Mr. Pauley filed the letter, court documents said.

According to Mr. Pauley's filings, "it was unclear . . . whether
the handing fee would be applicable if the notice of parking
violation had already been paid by the time the letter was sent."

Because Hertz didn't incur any costs associated with the parking
ticket, and because Pauley's rental agreement didn't mention
handling fees, he sued on behalf of a class of Hertz renters,
bringing claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
conversion.  The class would include customers who Hertz charged a
"handling fee" after they received a parking citation and paid it
on their own, court documents said.

Hertz removed the case to federal court in December, arguing that
the suit meets diversity requirements because Mr. Pauley lives in
West Virginia, Hertz Global and its subsidiaries are Delaware
corporations operating in New Jersey, and co-defendant Dollar
Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. is headquartered in Oklahoma, court
records show.

Hertz also argued that the class includes more than 100 members
and that between 2010 and November 2013, Hertz customers had paid
more than $5 million in administrative fees associated with
transfer of liability costs on customers' parking tickets, court
documents said.

Mr. Pauley argued in opposition that those numbers were too high
because it appeared to include customers who hadn't already paid
their parking citation fees before Hertz attempted to charge the
fee.  Judge Chambers agreed.

"Though portions of the complaint could fairly be viewed as a
general attack on defendants' practices regarding transfer of
liability fees, when reading the complaint as a whole, the court
believes that the complaint should not be interpreted such that
those more general allegations widen the otherwise narrowly
defined class," he said in his ruling.

Anthony Majestro -- amajestro@powellmajestro.com -- of Powell &
Majestro PLLC, representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on May 19
that the ruling was "unquestionably correct."

The plaintiffs are represented by Anthony J. Majestro of Powell &
Majestro PLLC and by Timothy C. Bailey of Bucci Bailey & Javins
LC.

Hertz is represented by Christina L. Smith -- cls@farrell3.com --
of Farrell White & Legg PLLC and by John F. Ward  Jr., Michael J.
Farrell and Ross B. Bricker of Jenner & Block LLP.

The case is Pauley v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al., case
number 3:13-cv-31273, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.


HINZ JJ: Sued by Delivery Drivers in Kansas Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Wheaton and Daniel Hogue, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Hinz JJ, LLC, Olathe North JJ, LLC
and Sandra Hinz, Case No. 2:14-cv-02223-RDR-KGS (D. Kan., May 14,
2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated delivery drivers
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Hinz JJ, LLC and Sandra Hinz operate more than 14 Jimmy John's
Gourmet Sandwich restaurants in Kansas.  One of these restaurants
was independently incorporated as Olathe North JJ, LLC, and is
located in Olathe, Kansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brittany E. Lagemann, Esq.
          Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
          Michael F. Brady, Esq.
          BRADY & ASSOCIATES
          10901 Lowell Ave., Suite 280
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 696-0925
          Facsimile: (913) 696-0468
          E-mail: lagemann@mbradylaw.com
                  mkistler@mbradylaw.com
                  brady@mbradylaw.com


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls One Lot of Labetalol Hydrochloride Injection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. on May 16, 2014, said it will initiate a voluntary
nationwide recall to the user level for one lot of Labetalol
Hydrochloride Injection, USP, 100 mg/20 mL (5 mg/mL) 20 mL
Multidose Vial, NDC 0409-2267-20, Lot 36-225-DD, Expiration
12/01/2015. (NDC and lot number can be found on the right-hand
side of the primary label). The recall is due to a confirmed
customer report of embedded particulate within the glass vial and
visible particles floating in the solution. Based upon the
complaint sample analysis, there is the potential for product to
come into contact with embedded particles and the particles may
become dislodged into the solution. The embedded particulate was
identified as stainless steel and the floating particulate as iron
oxide. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse
events associated with this issue for this lot. Hospira has
attributed the embedded particulate to a supplier's glass defect.
As a result of this issue, Hospira is working with its supplier on
implementing corrective and preventive actions.

If the particulate is administered undetected -- the health
implications will vary depending on the amount of particulate
matter injected into the patient, the size of the particles, the
patient's underlying medical condition and heart abnormalities.
Blocked administration of the drug to the patient, causing a delay
in therapy is possible. However, due to the size of the
particulates identified, it is more likely that particulates are
able to pass through the catheter and may cause injection site
reactions and local irritation in the blood vessels, tissues and
organs. While extremely rare, particulate exposed to strong
magnetic fields (e.g. MRI), could potentially dislodge and cause
tissue damage. However, due to the particulate size identified,
the probability of an adverse outcome resulting from such
particulate when dislodged through a magnetic field is remote.

Labetalol Hydrochloride Injection, USP is a clear colorless
solution for intravenous administration and is indicated for
control of blood pressure in severe hypertension. The product is
packaged in a 20 mL multidose glass vial, each vial is packaged
within an individual carton, and 50 individual cartons are
packaged within each shipping container. The recalled lot was
distributed nationwide in the U.S. in February, 2014, to
wholesalers/distributors, hospitals and clinics.

Hospira is notifying its distributors and customers by issuing a
recall notification letter and will arrange for return/replacement
of all recalled product. Anyone with an existing inventory should
immediately stop use and quarantine any affected product. In
addition, customers should inform potential users of this product
in their organizations of this notification. For additional
assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-386-2076 (M-F, 8 a.m - 5 p.m.
ET).

For medical inquiries, please contact Hospira Medical
Communications at 1-800-615-0187. This phone number is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week. Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.

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

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

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

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

Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs
and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars.
Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely
positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., and has approximately 17,000
employees.


HUNGARY: Court Grants Motions to Dismiss in "Simon" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the dark chapter of history that is World War II, Winston
Churchill called the shipment of hundreds of thousands of
Hungarian Jews to the Nazi death camps in Poland and Germany
"probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in
the history of the world," wrote District Judge Beryl A. Howell in
a memorandum opinion dated May 9, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/a2hPyafrom Leagle.com.

The 14 named plaintiffs in a proposed class action -- Rosalie
Simon, Helen Herman, Charlotte Weiss, Helena Weksberg, Rose
Miller, Tzvi Zelikovitch, Magda Kopolovich Bar-Or, Zehava (Olga)
Friedman, Yitzhak Pressburger, Alexander Speiser, Ze-ev Tibi Ram,
Vera Deutsch Danos, Ella Feuerstein Schlanger, and Moshe Perel --
survived this vicious aspect of the greater Holocaust. The case is
captioned ROSALIE SIMON, et al., Individually, for themselves and
for all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC OF
HUNGARY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1770 (BAH), (D.
D. C.). The plaintiffs no longer reside in Hungary. Four of the
named plaintiffs, Simon, Weiss, Miller, and Schlanger, are now
U.S. nationals; two plaintiffs, Herman and Weksberg, are nationals
of Canada; one plaintiff, Danos, is a national of Australia; and
the remaining seven plaintiffs are nationals of Israel. They seek
recompense for alleged atrocities committed against and property
allegedly stolen from them during the Holocaust by the three
defendants, the Republic of Hungary and the state-owned Magyar
Allamvasutak Zrt. (MAV), which is the Hungarian national railway
(collectively, the Hungary Defendants); and Rail Cargo Hungaria
Zrt. (RCH), which is a freight rail company that is the successor-
in-interest to MAV Cargo Arufuvarozasi Zrt., f/k/a MAV Cargo Zrt.,
a former division of MAV. Before the Court were two Motions to
Dismiss filed by the Hungary Defendants, and Defendant RCH.

"[T]hough the plaintiffs may indeed be deserving of greater
restitution than any amounts they have been provided, the
defendants' motions are granted," ruled Judge Howell.

Judge Howell elaborated that "[t]he atrocities committed by the
Nazis and their collaborators during World War II will continue to
reverberate through history for decades to come, as they should,
so the world may learn not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
There is no doubt that the plaintiffs were wronged, atrociously
so, and that they believe Defendant Hungary, assisted by its
railway, has not atoned adequately for its genocidal actions.
Nevertheless, there are limits to the reach of the United States
courts to provide redress where the Constitution and relevant laws
and treaties say otherwise. For the foregoing reasons, the Hungary
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Defendant RCH's Motion to
dismiss are granted."

ROSALIE SIMON, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax --
cfax@rwlls.com -- RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H.
Weinstein -- weinstein@wka-law.com -- WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER
LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell -- mzell@fandz.com -- ZELL & CO. & Paul G.
Gaston -- pgaston@attglobal.net -- LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

HELEN HERMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

CHARLOTTE WEISS, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

HELENA WEKSBERG, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

ROSE MILLER, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax, RIFKIN,
LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein, WEINSTEIN
KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. & Paul G.
Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

TZVI ZELIKOVITCH, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

MAGDA KOPOLOVICH BAR-OR, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel
Fax, RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

ZEHAVA (OLGA) FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel
Fax, RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

YITZHAK PRESSBURGER, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

ALEXANDER SPEISER, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

ZE'EV TIBI RAM, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

VERA DEUTSCH DANOS, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

ELLA FEUERSTEIN SCHLANGER, Individually, for themselves and for
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles
Samuel Fax, RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H.
Weinstein, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell,
ZELL & CO. & Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

MOSHE PERELMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Samuel Fax,
RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN, & SILVER, David H. Weinstein,
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Lawrence Marc Zell, ZELL & CO. &
Paul G. Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. GASTON.

REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, Defendant, represented by Holly Elizabeth
Loiseau -- holly.loiseau@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES,
L.L.P., Brian Keith Gibson -- keith.gibson@weil.com -- WEIL,
GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP & Konrad Lee Cailteux --
konrad.cailteux@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP.

MAGYAR ALLAMVASUTAK ZRT., (MAV ZRT.), Defendant, represented by
Holly Elizabeth Loiseau, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P., Brian
Keith Gibson, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP & Konrad Lee Cailteux,
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP.

RAIL CARGO HUNGARIA ZRT., Defendant, represented by Marianne R.
Casserly -- marianne.casserly@alstoncom -- ALSTON & BIRD, LLP,
Alan Kanzer -- alan.kanzer@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP & Amber
Christina Wessels -- amber.wessels-yen@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD
L.L.P.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party, represented by Nathan
Michael Swinton, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, Amicus, represented by Thomas G. Corcoran Jr.
-- tgc@bcr-dc.com -- BERLINER, CORCORAN & ROWE, L.L.P.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of INSYS
Therapeutics, Inc. on May 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers
of INSYS securities between May 2, 2013 and May 8, 2014,
inclusive.

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

Insys is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes innovative supportive care products.  The Company
has two marketed products -- a generic equivalent to Marinol for
chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting and anorexia in patients
with AIDS, and Subsys, a proprietary sublingual fentanyl spray for
breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant patients.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) the Company's illegal and/or improper marketing of
Subsys; (2) that improper marketing of Subsys could lead to
regulatory scrutiny; (3) that such regulatory scrutiny could
expose the Company to potential fines and other disciplinary
actions; and (4), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On December 12, 2013, Insys disclosed that it has received a
subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in connection with an
investigation of potential violations involving HHS programs and
requesting documents regarding Subsys, including Insys' sales and
marketing practices relating to Subsys.  On this news, shares of
Insys stock declined $4.70 per share, or nearly 16%, to close at
$25.37 per share on December 13, 2013.

On May 8, 2014, the MLive.com website reported that a Kochville
Township, Michigan, neurologist is under federal investigation and
accused of defrauding Medicare for allegedly receiving $6.9
million from January 1, 2009 through February 6, 2014, for Subsys
he allegedly prescribed to Medicare beneficiaries nationwide
during that period.  The MLive.com article alleges that the
physician was responsible for over 20% of total nationwide Subsys
prescriptions.  Following this news, the Company's stock price
declined $6.63 per share, more than 17%, to close at $32.68 per
share on May 9, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than July 14, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael
Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York,
New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Listerine Bogus Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson pushes its
Listerine Total Care mouthwash with bogus claims that it "restores
enamel," a class action claims in Federal Court in Manhattan.


KARMA CULTURE: Sued by Consumer of Karma Wellness Water Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Zakhar, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Karma Culture LLC, a New York corporation,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00693-VLB (D. Conn., May 14, 2014) is brought on
behalf of similarly situated consumers in Connecticut seeking to
redress the alleged pervasive pattern of fraudulent, deceptive,
false, and otherwise improper advertising, sales, and marketing
practices that the Defendant engages in regarding its Karma
Wellness Water products.

Karma Culture LLC is a New York limited liability corporation
based in Pittsford, New York.  The Company manufactures, markets,
and sells Karma, which is a line of beverage products with
vitamins and other ingredients stored in the cap to be released
into the bottle upon consumption of the product.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  kleser@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
          Valerie L. Chang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com
                  vchang@sfmslaw.com


KIND HEALTHY: Recalls Pumpkin Seed Bars Due to Undeclared Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIND Healthy Snacks (KIND) is voluntarily recalling STRONG & KIND
bars as well as KIND Healthy Grains Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea
Salt bars after learning that, contrary to KIND's strict quality
specifications, its supplier roasted pumpkin seeds using equipment
that had also been used to roast peanuts. "While we know our
supplier conducted rigorous allergen cleans before roasting the
seeds, they did not perform tests to validate that no peanut
particles remained, and KIND takes no chances when it comes to the
safety of our consumers," said John Leahy, President of KIND.

The five STRONG & KIND bars that are affected by the recall are
clearly labeled on the packaging: Roasted Jalape¤o, Honey Smoked
BBQ, Thai Sweet Chili, Honey Mustard, and Hickory Smoked. In
addition, KIND Healthy Grains Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea Salt
bars are also clearly labeled.

"Even though only certain lot codes may have been affected, out of
an abundance of caution, and to minimize any inconvenience for our
consumers and retail customers, we are voluntarily recalling all
of the supply of these six products currently in the marketplace"
said Leahy.

The six bars were distributed nationally in supermarkets and other
retail food and non-food outlets.

No allergic reactions to any of the bars have been reported to
date; however, people who have an allergy or sensitivity to
peanuts should not consume these products. No other KIND products
are affected, and the recalled products may be safely consumed by
those who do not have an allergy or sensitivity to peanuts.

Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or
refunds may contact the company 1 855.884.5463 Monday - Friday,
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST or e-mail the company at
customerservice@kindsnacks.com.

This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the Food and
Drug Administration.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Select Cottage Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods Group is voluntarily recalling select Knudsen Cottage
Cheese, Breakstone's Cottage Cheese, Simply Kraft Cottage Cheese,
and Daily Chef Cottage Cheese products. Some ingredients used in
these products were not stored in accordance with Kraft's
temperature standards. While unlikely, this could create
conditions that could lead to premature spoilage and/or food borne
illness; therefore, the company is issuing the recall as a
precaution. The affected products all have code dates from May 9,
2014 through July 23, 2014.

Approximately 1.2 million cases of affected product were shipped
to customers across the United States. The affected products were
not distributed outside of the United States.

The following varieties are being recalled:

Product Size Name of Product
Units/Case
Code Dates only from Plant 06-245
Package Code
Case Code

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES PINEAPPLE
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000006670 or 02166700
00 21000 00667 00

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES STRAWBERRY
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000006687 or 02166807
00 21000 00668 00

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES PEACH
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000006694 or 02166904
00 21000 00669 00

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES BLUEBERRY
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000006700 or 02167000     00 21000 00670 00

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES APPLE CINNAMON
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000006717 or 02167107
00 21000 00671 00

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES RASPBERRY
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000007134 or 02171304
00 21000 00713 00

3.9Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE DOUBLES MANGO
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000007141 or 02171401
00 21000 00714 00

16Z SIMPLY KRAFT COTTAGE CHEESE 4% SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000034574
00 21000 03457 00

16Z SIMPLY KRAFT COTTAGE CHEESE 2% SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000034628
00 21000 03462 00

24Z SIMPLY KRAFT FAT FREE COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000034758     00 21000 03475 00

24Z SIMPLY KRAFT 2% COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000034765
00 21000 03476 00

24Z SIMPLY KRAFT 4% COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000034772
00 21000 03477 00

4-4Z BREAKSTONE'S COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD 2%
8 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000123827
00 21000 12382 00

3.9Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE DOUBLES PEACH
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000093 or 04990933     00 49900 00009 00

3.9Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE DOUBLES STRAWBERRY
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000109 or 04991039
00 49900 00010 00

3.9Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE DOUBLES PINEAPPLE
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000116 or 04991136
00 49900 00011 00

8Z KNUDSEN 2% LOW FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000147 or 04991437
00 49900 00014 00

8Z KNUDSEN 4% COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000154 or 04991534
00 49900 00015 00

3.9Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE CHEESE DOUBLES BLUEBERRY
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000161 or 04991631
00 49900 00016 00

3.9Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE DOUBLES RASPBERRY
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000253 or 04992533
00 49900 00025 00

3.9Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE DOUBLES MANGO
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900000260 or 04992630
00 49900 00026 00

4-4Z KNUDSEN LOWFAT COTTAGE CHEESE AND PINEAPPLE
8 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900001182     00 49900 00118 00

16Z KNUDSEN FREE NON-FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900100205     00 49900 10020 00

4-4Z KNUDSEN LOW FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
8 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900102001     00 49900 10030 00

32Z KNUDSEN FREE NON-FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
6 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900100601     00 49900 10060 00

16Z KNUDSEN LOWFAT COTTAGE CHEESE AND PINEAPPLE
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900302708     00 49900 30270 00

32Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD
6 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900342643     00 49900 34264 00

16Z KNUDSEN COTTAGE CHEESE SMALL CURD
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900342728     00 49900 34270 00

16Z KNUDSEN LOW FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
12 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900345040     00 49900 34506 00

3LB KNUDSEN LOW FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
6 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900346306     00 49900 34630 00

32Z KNUDSEN LOW FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
6 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
049900347020     00 49900 34702 00

3LB DAILY CHEF LOW FAT COTTAGE CHEESE
6 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
078742043487
00 78742 04348 00

5LB DAILY CHEF REGULAR COTTAGE CHEESE
6 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
078742043494
00 78742 04349 00

4-4Z BREAKSTONE'S LOWFAT COTTAGE CHEESE WITH PINEAPPLE
8 units/case
09 MAY 2014 to 23 JUL 2014 Plant 06-245 ONLY
021000025251
00 21000 02525 00

Consumers can find the code date on the bottom of the cup or the
top of the package. Simply Kraft products with a plant code of 36-
2158 on the cups or a "W" in the case code (e.g., "W 21 JUL 2014")
are not affected. Simply Kraft products subject to the recall are
only those with a plant code of 06-245 on the bottom of the cup
and case code date without any "W" (e.g., "21 JUL 2014").

No other Knudsen, Breakstone's, Simply Kraft or Daily Chef
products are impacted by this recall.

The Tulare, Calif. manufacturing facility, where all of the
affected products were produced, has ceased production and
distribution of the affected products as the company works to
address the problem.

Consumers who purchased any of these products should not eat them.
They should return them to the store where purchased for an
exchange or full refund. Consumers also can contact Kraft Foods
Consumer Relations at 1-800-396-6307 between 9 am and 6 pm
(Eastern).

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRFT) is one of North America's
largest consumer packaged food and beverage companies, with annual
revenues of more than $18 billion. With the spirit of a startup
and the soul of a powerhouse, Kraft has an unrivaled portfolio of
products in the beverages, cheese, refrigerated meals and grocery
categories. The company's iconic brands include Kraft, Capri Sun,
Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Lunchables, Maxwell House, Oscar Mayer,
Philadelphia, Planters and Velveeta. Kraft's 22,500 employees in
the U.S. and Canada have a passion for making the foods and
beverages people love. Kraft is a member of the Standard & Poor's
500 and the NASDAQ-100 indices.


LANSAL INC: Recalls Hummus & Dip Products Due to Listeria Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Foods manufacturer, Lansal, Inc.( d.b.a Hot Mama's
Foods), announced that as a precaution it is voluntarily recalling
approximately 14,860 pounds of hummus and dip products due to
concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes, an organism, which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Lansal, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all products manufactured at
the same facility and distributed to both wholesalers and
retailers during the same time. These include the following
products that are packaged in plastic containers:

  UPC           Item           Use by Dates  Affected Areas
  ------------  -------------  ------------  --------------
85239233405     Target Archer  JUN/11/2014   National
                Farms
                Traditional
                Hummus 10oz.

8968630 01823   Target Archer  JUN/11/2014   National
                Farms
                Traditional
                Hummus 2lb.
                (Non-retail
                item;
                Ingredient
                item used
                in
                SuperTarget
                store
                production
                of
                2 items,
                Archer Farms
                Mediterranean
                Veggie
                Hummus
                Wrap and
                Archer Farms
                Hummus
                Veggie
                Snacker)

85239233498     Target Archer  JUN/9/14 &    National
                Farms Roasted  JUN/12/14
                Garlic with
                Roasted
                Garlic
                Tapenade
                17 oz.

85239233481     Target Archer  JUN/12/2014   National
                Farms Roasted
                Red Pepper
                with Roasted
                Red Pepper
                Topping
                17 oz.

30034065881     Giant Eagle    MAY/7/2014 &  Pennsylvania,
                Chipotle       MAY/14/14     West Virginia,
                Hummus 8oz.                  Ohio, and
                                             Maryland.


30034064747     Giant Eagle    MAY/7/2014 &  Pennsylvania,
                Garlic         MAY/14/14     West Virginia,
                Hummus 8oz.                  Ohio, and
                                             Maryland.

988582          Trader Joe's   APR/28/14 &   Arizona,
                Edamame        APR/29/14 &   California,
                Hummus 8oz.    MAY/9/24      Colorado,
                                             Florida,
                                             Georgia,
                                             Idaho,
                                             Louisiana,
                                             North Carolina,
                                             Nevada,
                                             New Mexico,
                                             Oregon,
                                             South Carolina,
                                             Tennessee,
                                             Texas, Utah,
                                             Virginia
                                             (Southern),
                                             Washington

435451          Trader Joe's   APR/15/2014   Illinois,
                5 Layered                    Indiana,
                Dip Small                    Iowa, Kansas,
                11.5oz.                      Kentucky,
                                             Michigan,
                                             Minnesota,
                                             Missouri,
                                             Nebraska,
                                             Ohio &
                                             Wisconsin

435451          Trader Joe's   APR/15/2014   Illinois,
                5 Layered                    Indiana,
                Dip Small                    Iowa, Kansas,
                11.5oz.                      Kentucky,
                                             Michigan,
                                             Minnesota,
                                             Missouri,
                                             Nebraska,
                                             Ohio &
                                             Wisconsin

274043          Trader Joe's   APR/15/2014   Illinois,
                5 Layered                    Indiana,
                Dip Large                    Iowa, Kansas,
                24oz.                        Kentucky,
                                             Michigan,
                                             Minnesota,
                                             Missouri,
                                             Nebraska,
                                             Ohio &
                                             Wisconsin

8968630 01410   Tryst Yellow   Only          Midwest &
                Lentil         Products      Pacific
                Hummus with    with the      Northwest
                Sunflower      following     regions of
                Seeds &        Lot Codes:    United
                Apricots                     States
                10oz           USE BY
                               JUN/10/14
                               E Time
                               stamp &
                               USE BY
                               JUN/12/14
                               E Time
                               Stamp

The potential for contamination was found during a routine test of
Target Archer Farms Traditional Hummus (10 ounce) by the Texas
Department of Health. No illness has been reported.

Lansal, Inc. has contacted all impacted retail customers and
distributors instructing them to remove all affected product from
sale and is working with the appropriate agencies including state
Departments of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and local
authorities.

Consumers who have purchased the above hummus products are urged
not to eat it and to dispose of it or return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with any questions may call
toll free (877) 550-0694 from 8:00A.M. to 8:00P.M. Eastern
Standard Time 7 Days a week.


MIDDLE EAST BAKERY: Recalls Dairy-free, Gluten-free Pancakes
------------------------------------------------------------
Middle East Bakery of Lawrence, MA is recalling all lots of Market
Basket Dairy-Free, Gluten-Free Pancakes, because they may contain
undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The Market Basket Dairy-Free, Gluten-Free Pancakes were sold at
Market Basket Supermarket Stores in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.

The pancakes are sold in the frozen food department. Each package
contains (12) Market Basket, Dairy-Free, Gluten-Free Pancakes in a
14.4 oz. (408 g) box with UPC 4970571120.

There was one reported illness due to an adverse reaction to the
milk allergen.

This press announcement is being issued as a result of a FDA
inspection. All recalled lots have been removed from the
supermarket shelves. It was discovered that product containing
milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence
of milk. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused
by a temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging
processes.

Consumers who have purchased the Market Basket Dairy-Free, Gluten-
Free Pancakes should discard it immediately or return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Customers with questions may
contact Middle East bakery at (978) 688-2221, Monday through
Friday 9:00 to 5:00 EST.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Football Players Sue Over Painkillers
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Litke, writing for The Associated Press, reports that former
NFL lineman Jeremy Newberry often hobbled into the 49ers locker
room on game days using a walking boot and crutches, then lined up
behind as many as two dozen teammates, in his case to get a shot
of the painkiller Toradol in the butt.  Ten minutes later, he
sprinted out of the tunnel and onto the field.

The toughness of pro football players may be legendary, but a
lawsuit filed on May 20 on behalf of more than 600 former players
contends it was abetted by team physicians and trainers across the
NFL who routinely -- and often illegally -- dispensed powerful
narcotics and other controlled substances on game days to mask the
pain.

Among them were the painkillers Percodan, Percocet and Vicodin,
anti-inflammatories such as Toradol, and sleep aids such as
Ambien -- "handed out like candy at Halloween," according to lead
attorney Steven Silverman.  Sometimes, the lawsuit also charges,
the drugs were given in combinations as "cocktails."

"The stuff works," Mr. Newberry, who played seven of his nine
seasons in San Francisco before retiring in 2009, told The
Associated Press in an interview.  "It works like crazy.  It
really does."

But only for so long.

Mr. Newberry, now 38 and one of the eight plaintiffs so far named
in the lawsuit, says that because of the drugs he took while
playing, he suffers from kidney failure, high blood pressure and
violent headaches.  Others -- including three members of the NFL
champion 1985 Chicago Bears: quarterback Jim McMahon, Hall of Fame
defensive end Richard Dent and offensive lineman Keith Van Horne
-- reported a range of debilitating effects, from chronic muscle
and bone ailments to permanent nerve and organ damage to
addiction.

"Our attorneys have not seen the lawsuit," said NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell, in Atlanta for the league's spring meetings, "and
obviously I have been in meetings all day."

The lawsuit's main burden is proving cause and effect -- that use
of painkillers long ago is responsible for chronic problems the
players face now.

The claims are for a wide variety of problems that are common in
older people, such as high blood pressure, knee replacements,
arthritis, kidney problems, heart attacks and abnormal heart
rhythms.  The diversity of these problems, affecting so many
different parts and body systems, tends to argue against a single
cause, such as painkiller use.

The players also would have to show that they are suffering these
problems at a greater rate than other people their age, and that
it's not due to other risk factors such as obesity, smoking and
family history.

Six of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit filed in federal court in
San Francisco, including Messrs. McMahon and Van Horne, were also
parties to the concussion-related class-action lawsuit less than a
year ago.  The NFL agreed to pay $765 million to settle that case
-- without acknowledging it concealed the risks of concussions
from former players.  A federal judge has yet to approve the
settlement, expressing concern the amount is too small.

"The difference is that the concussion case claimed the NFL knew
or should have known," Mr. Silverman said.  "We're saying this was
intentional, putting profits ahead of players' health -- and in
violation of federal controlled substance laws, as well as state
laws.  You don't order hundreds of narcotic painkillers in their
names without telling them."

The lawsuit covers the years 1968-2008.  Mr. Silverman said a
number of clients reported teams had "tightened up" dispensing
procedures since then, including one incident in which a player
said a trainer waited until the team plane on a flight home was
10,000 feet in the air before handing over a narcotic "to avoid
violating any state laws."

Messrs. McMahon and Van Horne were among several players who said
they were never told about broken bones and fed pills to mask the
pain instead.  Toradol, which players called a "full-body numb-er"
and "the current game-day drug of choice of the NFL" was prevalent
enough that Newberry described frequently seeing both teammates
and opponents during warm-ups with blood spots on the buttocks of
their pants -- a telltale sign they'd taken a pre-game injection.

"There was a room set up near the locker room and you got in
line," said Kyle Turley, who played for three NFL teams in an
eight-year career.  "Obviously, we were grown adults and we had a
choice.  But when a team doctor is saying this will take the pain
away, you trust them.'

Mr. Newberry said he regrets that decision now, but never
considered not taking the drugs during his career because he
feared he'd be out of a job if he didn't play.  After his
retirement, a specialist who reviewed his medical records
concluded the protein levels in his urine had been elevated -- a
precursor to kidney problems -- for years.  Mr. Newberry said he
got blood work during a team-sponsored physical every year but was
never told about any problems.

"They said, 'You're good to go, you passed another one.  You're
cleared to play,'" he recalled.

Mr. Silverman said he planned to serve the NFL with the lawsuit
within the next 120 days, after which the league has 30 days to
respond.  The case could be significantly delayed if there are
similar filings and the lawsuits are eventually consolidated into
a single class-action.

"We hope this gets to trial," Mr. Silverman said.  "I could see a
scenario where, if it were to go to discovery, there would be more
doctors and trainers taking the Fifth (Amendment) than providing
sworn testimony.  We think the problem is that profound."


NAVITAS NATURALS: Recalls Sprouted Chia Seed Powder Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Navitas Naturals, the Superfood Company is voluntarily recalling
products which contain Organic Sprouted Chia Powder due to
possible health risks related to Salmonella contamination. "We
have chosen to voluntarily recall products containing Organic
Sprouted Chia Powder with the goal of utmost safety for our
consumers" stated Zach Adelman, Navitas Naturals CEO.

The affected products were distributed nationally and include:

    Navitas Naturals Organic Sprouted Chia Powder, 8oz, UPC
858847000369 with best buy dates from 04/30/2015 through
09/05/2015

    Navitas Naturals Omega Blend Sprouted Smoothie Mix, 8oz, UPC
858847000314 with best buy dates from 07/29/2015 through
09/19/2015

    Williams-Sonoma Omega 3 Smoothie Mixer, 8 oz, SKU 506436 with
best buy dates from 09/12/2015 through 10/02/2015

No other Navitas Naturals products are affected by this recall.

Consumers who have purchased this item are urged to not eat the
product, and to dispose of it or return it to the store where it
was originally purchased.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella
often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses.

The company is working closely with FDA and California Department
of Public Health on this issue. "Ensuring the premium quality of
the superfoods we provide is our highest priority," said Adelman."
We stand behind the safety and integrity of our products and their
valuable superfood nutrients," confirmed Adelman.

Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or
refunds may contact 888-886-3879 between 8:00-4:30 PST, Monday
through Friday.


NEC CORP: Court Rejects Venue Transfer Bid in LCD Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order in IN RE: TFT-LCD
(FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION relating to Individual Case No.
13-cv-3349 SI: ACER AMERICA CORPORATION; GATEWAY, INC.; and
GATEWAY U.S. RETAIL, INC. f/k/a EMACHINES, INC., Plaintiffs, v.
HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES
(USA), INC.; NEC CORPORATION; NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA; NEC
DISPLAY SOLUTIONS OF AMERICA, INC.; NEC LCD TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.,
NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA MOBILE
DISPLAY CO., LTD.; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.;
TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC., Defendants, NOS. M 07-1827 SI, C 13-3349
SI, (N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court was the NEC defendants' motion to transfer venue.
NEC wanted the case transferred to the District of South Dakota,
following pretrial proceedings.  NEC argued that venue should be
transferred to South Dakota because the relevant public interest
factors do not weigh in favor of keeping the case in the Northern
District of California.

However, Judge Illston disagreed and denied the motion to transfer
venue. The Court agreed with plaintiffs that enforcing the forum
selection clause under these circumstances would contravene the
federal policy in favor of "efficient resolution of
controversies."

A copy of the District Court's April 14, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/8oEHPNfrom Leagle.com.

Martin Quinn, Special Master, Pro Se.

Martin Quinn, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn, JAMS.

Mr. Daniel Weinstein, Special Master, Pro Se.

Mr. Daniel Weinstein, Special Master, represented by Martin Quinn,
JAMS.

Giles Patricia, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel W. Lanham, Jr.,
Lanham & Blackwell & Ian Otto, Straus & Boies LLP.

Gina Cerda, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.

Linda Klare, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.

ATS Claim, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Paul Germaine,
Alberto Rodriguez, Vanek Vickers and Masini PC & Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L.
Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer,
Hausfeld, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP & Richard Martin
Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff, represented by Beatrice B.
Nguyen, Crowell & Moring LLP, Gregory D. Call, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Andre Mauricio Pauka, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
Bryan Leach, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Daniel
Robert Brody, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar and Scott LLP, Fred H.
Bartlit, Jr., Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar and Scott LLP, Karma
Micaela Giulianelli, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP,
Lester C Houtz, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar and Scott LLP, Mark
E Ferguson, Barlitt Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Mark S.
Ouweleen, Attorney at Law & Suzanne E. Rode, Crowell & Moring LLP.

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd
Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey
H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L.
Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Plaintiff, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey
H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L.
Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Nokia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Parker Miller,
Alston & Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird LLP,
Edward Paul Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, Joann Elizabeth
Johnston, Alston & Bird LLP, Kacy Christine McCaffrey, Alston and
Bird LLP, Kevin Michael Pitre, Alston and Bird, Lisa Kathleen
Bojko, Alston & Bird, Matthew Scott Orrell, Matthew D. Richardson,
ALSTON BIRD LLP, Peter Konito, Alston Bird LLP, Randall Lee Allen,
Alston and Bird, Richard W. Stimson, Alston & Bird LLP, Valarie
Cecile Williams, Alston & Bird LLP & Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston
& Bird LLP.

Nokia Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Parker Miller, Alston
& Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird LLP, Edward Paul
Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, Joann Elizabeth Johnston, Alston &
Bird LLP, Kacy Christine McCaffrey, Alston and Bird LLP, Kevin
Michael Pitre, Alston and Bird, Lisa Kathleen Bojko, Alston &
Bird, Matthew Scott Orrell, Matthew D. Richardson, ALSTON BIRD
LLP, Peter Konito, Alston Bird LLP, Randall Lee Allen, Alston and
Bird, Richard W. Stimson, Alston & Bird LLP, Valarie Cecile
Williams, Alston & Bird LLP & Donald MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird
LLP.

AT & T Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C.
Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

AT & T Datacomm, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

AT & T Mobility LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Joshua C.
Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

AT & T Operations, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

AT & T Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring
LLP & Joshua C. Stokes, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Motorola, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H.
Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Nathanial John
Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP &
Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Electrograph Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Electrograph Technologies, Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason
C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck, Alston and
Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Douglas R.
Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston
& Bird LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin Whitehead,
Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Rodney J
Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & Steven Daniel Hemminger, Alston & Bird
LLP.

Dell Products, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck,
Alston and Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP,
Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Elizabeth Helmer
Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Melissa Mahurin
Whitehead, Alston and Bird, Michael P. Kenny, ALSTON & BIRD LLP,
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & Steven Daniel Hemminger,
Alston & Bird LLP.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Christopher T Micheletti, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel R. Shulman, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty
& Bennett, P.A., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jack Wing
Lee, Minami Tamaki LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham,
P.C., Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Robert William Finnerty, Girardi Keese, Steven J Foley, Hellmuth
and Johnson PLLC, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Glicel
E Sumagaysay, Minami Tamaki LLP, Gregory W. Landry, LaMarca &
Landry, P.C. & Marvin A. Miller, Miller Law LLC.

State of Oregon, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General
of Washington, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones &
Wilder, LLP, Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley, Michael G.
Neff, Haglund Kelley Jones & Wilder LLP, Shay S. Scott, Haglund
Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder LLP & Tim David Nord, Oregon
Department of Justice.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP,
Marc Pilotin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Richard
Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Robert George
Retana, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, Thomas Kay Boardman,
Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP & William James Newsom,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Tracfone Wireless, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Bedford
Esau, James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton Fields PA & Robert L.
Ciotti, Carlton Fields, P.A.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew David Taggart,
Attorney at Law, Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S.
Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney
at Law, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi,
Michael A. Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew
David Taggart, Attorney at Law, Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan Miller
& Ciresi LLP, Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan
Miller and Ciresi, Michael A. Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P. & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
L.L.P.

Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew David Taggart,
Attorney at Law, Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S.
Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney
at Law, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi,
Michael A. Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew David Taggart,
Attorney at Law, Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S.
Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney
at Law, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Matthew David Taggart,
Attorney at Law, Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Elliot S.
Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney
at Law, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Kmart Corp, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring
LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes,
Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Matthew J.
McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell &
Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III,
Crowell and Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams
Holcomb LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb
LLP & Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.
Newegg Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring
LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes,
Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP, Matthew J.
McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell &
Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert Brian
McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene Levine,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth L. Adams, Adams Holcomb LLP,
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Nathanial John Wood,
Crowell & Moring LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Eastman Kodak Company, Plaintiff, represented by Blaire Zina
Russell, Nixon Peabody, John R. Foote, Nixon Peabody LLP & Karl
David Belgum, Nixon Peabody LLP.

SB Liquidation Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Diamond,
Diamond McCarthy LLP, Erica W. Harris, Susan Godfrey LLP, Jason
Paul Fulton, Diamond McCarthy LLP, Jim McCarthy, Diamond McCarthy
LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP, McCarthy D. James,
Diamond McCarthy LLP & Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Costco Wholesale Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Cori Gordon
Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, Cori G. Moore, Perkins Coil LLP, David
Burman, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP,
Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Perkins Coie, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins
Coie LLP, Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Steven Douglas
Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP & Troy Philip Sauro, Perkins Coie LLP.

Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Plaintiff, represented
by David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Margaret Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L.
Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP, Ross Christopher Paolino, Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe.

Sony Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Mark
Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Margaret
Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Richard James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L.
Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP, Ross Christopher Paolino, Orrick
Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by H. Lee Godfrey, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan
Jeffrey Ross, N/A, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss,
Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Jordan Connors, Susman Godfrey
LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Klee Tuchin et al LLP, Parker
C. Folse, III, Susman Godfrey LLP, Rachel S. Black, Susman Godfrey
L.L.P. & Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP.

MetroPCS Wireless Inc., Defendant, represented by Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C.,
Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

Office Depot, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stuart H. Singer,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

Jaco Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

T-Mobile USA Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Carlis, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Brooke Ashley-May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,
Kathryn Parsons Hoek, Susman Godfrey LLP & Parker C Folse, III,
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP.

BestBuy.com, L.L.C., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan Miller
& Ciresi LLP, Edward David Lodgen, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi &
Michael A. Geibelson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Benjamin Larry Luber, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Heather T. Rankie, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law
Firm, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP,
Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Theresa Driscoll
Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B
Felder.

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
Stuart H. Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V.
Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher
V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Allan
Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Craig C.
Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jack Wing Lee,
Minami Tamaki LLP, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Patrick
Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Robert S.
Green, Green & Noblin, P.C.

Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP,
Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner & William A.
Issacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom,
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & William A. Issacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Melissa Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod, LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher V.
Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus LeClair,
McKool Smith, P.C., Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Irene
Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring,
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael
Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Julie A. Bays, Office
of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Nicholas William Armstrong,
McCallum, Methvin, Terrell, P.C., P. Clayton Eubanks, Office of
the Oklahoma Attorney General, Phillip W. McCallum, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C. & Tom Bates, Office of the Oklahoma
Attorney General.

Neco Alliance LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP.

Electronic Express, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip F.
Cramer, SHERRARD & ROE, PLC & Ryan Thomas Holt, Sherrard and Roe,
PLC.

Barbara Cochran, Plaintiff, represented by John Jacob Pentz, Class
Action Fairness Group.

Kevin Luke, Plaintiff, represented by John Jacob Pentz, Class
Action Fairness Group.

Rockwell Automation Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David P Ross,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Nathanial
John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Proview Group Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Baute,
BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute & Tidus
LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Chase C. Alvord, Tousley Brian Stephens PLLC, Christopher Ian
Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC & Kim D. Stephens, Tousley,
Brain Stephens PLLC.

Proview Optronics Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D.
Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP & Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Proview Technology Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D.
Baute, BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute &
Tidus LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Chase C. Alvord, Tousley Brian Stephens PLLC,
Christopher Ian Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC & Kim D.
Stephens, Tousley, Brain Stephens PLLC.

Proview Technology, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Baute,
BAUTE CROCHETIERE & WANG LLP, Sean Adrian Andrade, Baute & Tidus
LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Chase C. Alvord, Tousley Brian Stephens PLLC, Christopher Ian
Brain, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC & Kim D. Stephens, Tousley,
Brain Stephens PLLC.

Johnny Kessel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.

Alison Paul, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.

Gerri Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by George Cochran.

Maria Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by George Cochran.

Wayne Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by George Cochran.

Geri Maxwell, Plaintiff, represented by George Cochran.

Acer America Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Fatima S
Alloo, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Bedford Esau, Hsiang
James H Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, James Blaker Baldinger,
Carlton Fields PA, Ken K. Fung, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Kevin
Christopher Jones, TechKnowledge Law Group & Michael C. Ting,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.
Gateway, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Fatima S Alloo,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Bedford Esau, Hsiang James H
Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, James Blaker Baldinger, Carlton
Fields PA, Ken K. Fung, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Kevin
Christopher Jones, TechKnowledge Law Group & Michael C. Ting,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Gateway U.S. Retail, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Fatima S
Alloo, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Bedford Esau, Hsiang
James H Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, James Blaker Baldinger,
Carlton Fields PA, Ken K. Fung, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Kevin
Christopher Jones, TechKnowledge Law Group & Michael C. Ting,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Charles Scott
Greene, Bryan Cave, LLP, Daniel B. Hauck, BRYAN CAVE LLP, George
Patrick Watson, Bryan Cave LLP & Lindsay Jaclyn Sklar, Bryan Cave
LLP.

Direct Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP.

LFG National Capital, LLC, Creditor, represented by Jonathan C.
Cross, Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP, Scott S. Balber,
Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP, Gregory Caesar Nuti,
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP & Valerie Anne Bantner Peo,
Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Hojoon Hwang,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP, Brad D.
Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, David M. Simon, Eimer Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B.
Speta, Eimer Stahl LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Justin Samuel
Weinstein-Tull, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Kyle W Mach, Munger, Tolles, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings LLP,
Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E. Gratzinger, Munger Tolles &
Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott Charles Solberg, Eimer Stahl LLP, Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil, Eimer Stahl LLP
& Truc Thanh Do, Munger Tolles Olson LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by John E.
Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling LLP, David Paul
Germaine, Derek Ludwin, Elizabeth Catherine Arens, Covington and
Burling, L.L.P. , Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington & Burling
LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP, Neil K.
Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling
LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling & Timothy C. Hester,
Covington & Burling.

Sharp Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Andrew Dale Lanphere,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Bruce H. Searby, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, David Paul Germaine, John M.
Grenfell, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw PittmanLLP, Joseph J Simons,
Paul Weiss LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth
A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Lindsay A.
Lutz, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Ryan Takemoto, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Sharp Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R.
Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Andrew Dale
Lanphere, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Bruce H. Searby,
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Craig A.
Benson, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, David Paul
Germaine, Fusae Nara, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, John M. Grenfell,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw PittmanLLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss
LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring, Kenneth A. Gallo,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Lindsay A. Lutz,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White & Case LLP, John Mark
Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch McAhren, White and Case
LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto,
White and Case LLP, Michael E. Hamburger, White Case LLP & J.
Frank Hogue, White Case LLP.

Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd., Defendant,
represented by John H. Chung, White & Case LLP & Wayne A. Cross,
White & Case LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al, Michelle Kim-Szrom,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al, Michelle Kim-Szrom,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Courtney Lynn Landis, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Kristie Anne Bluett, Morgan Lewis et al, Michelle Kim-
Szrom, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & John Clayton Everett, Jr.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Patrick Audal,
Duane Morris LLP, Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP &
George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.

NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joseph
Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP, Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane
Morris LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.

NEC Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, Edward G. Biester, III, Duane
Morris LLP, Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP & George
Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.

AU Optronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Allison Marie Dibley, Esq., Nossaman
LLP, Bryan B. Barnhart, Nossman LLP, Carl Lawrence Blumenstein,
Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Joseph
P. Russoniello, Brown George Ross LLP, Kirk Christopher Jenkins,
Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold, Michael F. Healy, Esq., Sedwick
Detert Moran & Arnold LLP, Patrick J. Richard, Nossaman LLP,
Dennis Patrick Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, John D. Cline, Law
Office of John D. Cline, K.C. Maxwell, Esq., Law Office of K.C.
Maxwell, Salezka Loirett Aguirre, Nossaman LLP & Veronica L
Harris, Nossaman LLP.

AU Optronics Corporation America, Defendant, represented by John
C. McGuire, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Matthew Clark
Lovell, Sedgwick LLP, Allison Marie Dibley, Esq., Nossaman LLP,
Bryan B. Barnhart, Nossman LLP, Carl Lawrence Blumenstein,
Nossaman LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Jason Haruo
Wilson, Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Kirk Christopher Jenkins, Sedgwick Detert
Moran Arnold, Michael F. Healy, Esq., Sedwick Detert Moran &
Arnold LLP, Patrick J. Richard, Nossaman LLP, Dennis Patrick
Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, John D. Cline, Law Office of John D.
Cline, Joseph P. Russoniello, K.C. Maxwell, Esq., Law Office of
K.C. Maxwell, Salezka Loirett Aguirre, Nossaman LLP & Veronica L
Harris, Nossaman LLP.

Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley R.
Hansen, Federal Public Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett,
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN
PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal
Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox,
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk
Wardwell, Wilmer Cutler, Hale and Dorr LLP, Bradley R Hansen,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk
and Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein
Jaeger LLP, David Paul Germaine, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer
Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman
LLP, William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Austin Van
Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

HannStar Display Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Belinda S. Lee, Latham & Watkins, Daniel
Murray Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Elizabeth Ann Gillen, Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett, Harrison J. Frahn, IV, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett, James Glenn Kreissman, Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP,
Jason Matthew Bussey, Simpson Thatcher and Barlett LLP, Jerry
Chen, Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP, Joanna A. Rosen, Latham and
Watkins, Melissa Derr Schmidt, Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett LLP &
Yi-Chin Ho, Latham and Watkins LLP.

Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E.
Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling LLP, David Paul
Germaine, Derek Ludwin, Elizabeth Catherine Arens, Covington and
Burling, L.L.P. , Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington & Burling
LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP, Neil K.
Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling
LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling, Timothy C. Hester,
Covington & Burling & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Stephen P. Freccero, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Derek Francis Foran, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, James P. Bennett, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Kimberly Linnell
Taylor, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn & Stephen E.
Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.

NEC Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.

CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Lyle Williams,
Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal
Public Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, LiJia Gong, Davis
Polk and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey
Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk
and Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.

NEC Electronic America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane
Morris LLP.

Chi Mei Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Lyle Williams,
Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen, Federal
Public Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B.
Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk
& Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk
and Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.

Nexgen Mediatech USA Inc, Defendant, represented by John Lyle
Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley R. Hansen,
Federal Public Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, LiJia
Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON,
Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan
Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell,
Wilmer Cutler, Hale and Dorr LLP, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and
Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.

NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP, George Dominic Niespolo,
Duane Morris LLP & Joseph Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
E. Hall, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP, Daniel M Suleiman, Covington & Burling LLP, David
Paul Germaine, Derek Ludwin, Elizabeth Catherine Arens, Covington
and Burling, L.L.P. , Jeffrey Michael Davidson, Covington &
Burling LLP, John Stewart Playforth, Covington and Burling LLP,
Neil K. Roman, Covington & Burling, Robert D. Wick, Covington &
Burling LLP, Steven D Sassaman, Covington and Burling & Timothy C.
Hester, Covington & Burling.

Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by
John Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley
R. Hansen, Federal Public Defender's Office, Christopher B.
Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell, LiJia Gong, Davis Polk
and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey
Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell & William D. Pollak, Davis
Polk and Wardwell LLP.

IPS Alpha Technology, LTD., Defendant, represented by Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Epson Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Derek Francis Foran,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, James P. Bennett, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Kimberly Linnell Taylor, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson
& Horn, Melvin R. Goldman, Morrison & Foerster, Sean David Unger,
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Stephen P. Freccero,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP & David Lawrence Meyer, Morrison & Foerster.

Nexgen Mediatech, Inc. ("Nexgen"), Defendant, represented by John
Lyle Williams, Jr., Manchester, Williams & Seibert, Bradley R.
Hansen, Federal Public Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett,
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
LiJia Gong, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN
PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON, Neal
Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha Harper Knox,
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis Polk
Wardwell, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell & William D.
Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.

Tatung Company of America, Inc. ("Tatung America"), Defendant,
represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, David Paul
Germaine, Joel Calcar Willard, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, William
S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Austin Van Schwing,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Toshiba America Electronics Components Inc, Defendant, represented
by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White &
Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch
McAhren, White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto, White and Case
LLP, Michael E. Hamburger, White Case LLP & J. Frank Hogue, White
Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.,, Defendant, represented
by Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White &
Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Kristen Jentsch
McAhren, White and Case LLP, Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP,
Heather Marie Burke, White and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa Cetina, Martin M Toto, White and Case
LLP, Michael E. Hamburger, White Case LLP & J. Frank Hogue, White
Case LLP.

LG Display America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hojoon Hwang,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP, Brad D.
Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Christopher Marisak Lynch,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman
LLP, David M. Simon, Emier Stahl LLP, Gregory J. Weingart, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul Hastings LLP, James B.
Speta, Eimer Stahl LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Justin Samuel
Weinstein-Tull, Katerina S Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
LLP, Kyle W Mach, Munger, Tolles, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings LLP,
Michael Williams Stevens, Peter E. Gratzinger, Munger Tolles &
Olson, Roxana Niktab, Scott Charles Solberg, Eimer Stahl LLP, Sean
David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP, Stephen H. Weil, Eimer Stahl LLP
& Truc Thanh Do, Munger Tolles Olson LLP.

Toshiba Mobile Display Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, John H. Chung, White & Case
LLP & John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba Mobile Display Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Kristen Jentsch McAhren, White and Case LLP.

Toshiba Mobile Display Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Dylan, White and Case LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP,
Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White
and Case LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Luisa
Cetina, Martin M Toto, White and Case LLP, Michael E. Hamburger,
White Case LLP & J. Frank Hogue, White Case LLP.

Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP.

Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Limited, Defendant, represented by Erin
Murdock-Park, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Lisa Cox Ghannoum, Baker
Hostetler, Michael Edward Mumford, Baker Hostetler LLP, Paul P
Eyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Peter Wethrell James, Baker
Hostetler, Tracy Lynn Cole, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Ernest E.
Vargo, Jr., Baker Hostetler LLP.

Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Sam N. Dawood, Kelly, Hockel & Klein P.C.,
Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Nick Steven
Verwolf, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dylan Ian
Ballard, Eric Scott O'Connor, Sheppard Mullin LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Dylan Ian
Ballard, Eric Scott O'Connor, Sheppard Mullin LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Chimei Innolux Corp., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Hansen,
Federal Public Defender's Office, Christopher B. Hockett, Davis
Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B.
Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Michael Jacob Ewart, HILLIS CLARK
MARTIN PETERSON, Michael Ramsey Scott, HILLIS CLARK MARTIN
PETERSON, Neal Alan Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Samantha
Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West Neukom, Davis
Polk Wardwell, Bradley R Hansen, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Emmet P Ong, Davis Polk and Wardwell & William D.
Pollak, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Matthew S.
Fitzwater, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

Tatung Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Alan Nedeau,
Nossaman LLP & William S Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP.

Chi Mei Optoelectronics Japan Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by
Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Samantha Harper Knox, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Sandra West
Neukom, Davis Polk Wardwell & Bradley R Hansen, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Brendan P.
Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Matthew S. Fitzwater, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.

Renesas Electronics America, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP.

NEC Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Joseph
Patrick Audal, Duane Morris LLP, Stephen Holbrook Sutro, Duane
Morris LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane Morris LLP.

Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin
Murdock-Park, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ernest E. Vargo, Jr., Baker
Hostetler LLP, Michael Edward Mumford, Baker Hostetler LLP, Paul P
Eyre, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tracy Lynn Cole, Baker & Hostetler
LLP.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Defendant, represented by Daniel J
Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm.

Barbara Cochran, Movant, represented by Joshua Reuben Furman,
Joshua R. Furman Law Corporation.

Ricoh Electronics, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented by Paul
S. Chan, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg,
P.C.

Apple Inc., Interested Party, represented by Caroline Nason
Mitchell, Jones Day & Robert Allan Mittelstaedt, Jones Day.

Douglas C. Giordan, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Alexandra Brudy, Interested Party, represented by Robert John
Stroj, Lanak & Hanna, P.C.

Joseph M. Alioto, Interested Party, represented by Joseph M.
Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm & David J. Cook, Cook Collection
Attorneys.

Office Max, Claimant, represented by Michael Kenneth Johnson,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

State of California, Amicus, represented by Adam Miller, CA Dept
of Justice & Emilio Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's
Office.

State of South Carolina, Amicus, represented by Susan Foxworth
Campbell, McGowan Hood and Felder.

ePlus Group, Inc., OBJECTOR, Miscellaneous, represented by Keith
Leslie Meeker, Attorney at Law.

Julius N. Dunmore, Jr., Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by
Alan J Sherwood, Law Office of of Alan J. Sherwood & Paul
Rothstein.

Shannon Cashion, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by Steve A
Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C.

Kelly Kress, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by John C.
Kress, The Kress Law Firm, LLC & Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller,
P.C.

W. Christopher McDonough, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by
Jonathan E. Fortman, Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman, LLC &
Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C.

Mark Schulte, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by J. Scott
Kessinger & Steve A Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C.

Keena Dale, Objector, Miscellaneous, represented by N. Albert
Bacharach, Jr., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. P.A.

Charles W Daff, Class Claimant, Trustee, represented by Leo J.
Presiado, Rus, Miliband & Smith, APC.

United States Antitrust Division,Department of Justice,
Intervenor, represented by Peter K. Huston, Department of Justice,
Alexandra Jill Shepard, U.S. Department of Justice, David J. Ward,
U.S. Department of Justice, Antritrust Divsion, E. Kate Patchen,
U.S. Department of Justice, Heather S. Tewksbury, United States
Department of Justice, Micah Lanielle Wyatt, U.S. Department of
Justice & Michael L. Scott, Antitrust Division.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General, Brady R. Johnson, Attorney General
of Washington, Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office of the Illinois
Attorney General, Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren
Jones & Wilder, LLP & Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley.

State of Washington, Intervenor, represented by Brady R. Johnson,
Attorney General of Washington, Blake Lee Harrop, Office of the
Attorney General, Jonathan A Mark, Attorney General of Washington,
Michael E. Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder, LLP,
Michael Kevin Kelley, haglund kelley & Tina E. Kondo, Senior
Assistant Attorney General.

NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., Intervenor, represented by Stephen
Holbrook Sutro, Duane Morris LLP & George Dominic Niespolo, Duane
Morris LLP.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Intervenor, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Philips Electronics North America Corp., Intervenor, represented
by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell.

Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Intervenor, represented by
Allison Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Leah Nylen, Intervenor, Pro Se.

State of Mississippi, Intervenor, represented by Carolyn Glass
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Geoffrey Morgan, Office of the
Mississippi Attorney General.

State of Mississippi, Intervenor, represented by Jim Hood, Office
of the Mississippi Attorney General & Meredith M. Aldridge, Office
of the Mississippi Attorney General.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

Office Depot, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Stuart H.
Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Katerina S
Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

Office Depot, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Stuart H.
Singer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory
J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.
Interbond Corporation of America, Counter-defendant, represented
by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.

Interbond Corporation of America, Counter-defendant, represented
by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stuart Harold Singer,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

T-Mobile USA Inc, Counter-defendant, represented by Brooke Ashley-
May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN
GODFREY LLP.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Katerina S
Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

T-Mobile USA Inc, Counter-defendant, represented by Brooke Ashley-
May Taylor, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Parker C Folse, III, SUSMAN
GODFREY LLP.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher
V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Counter-defendant,
represented by Melissa B Felder.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Gregory
J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher V. Fenlon,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Christopher
V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Melissa B Felder.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Counter-defendant,
represented by Melissa B Felder.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Katerina S
Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

Jaco Electronics, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Christopher Alan Nedeau, Nossaman LLP, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Holly A. House, Paul
Hastings LLP, Jonathan E. Altman, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Katerina S
Colitti, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Kevin C. McCann,
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP, Lee F Berger, Paul Hastings
LLP & Sean David Unger, Paul, Hastings, LLP.

Jaco Electronics, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by Jason C.
Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney
Stokes, Crowell & Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring
LLP.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Lee F
Berger, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP.

LG Display Co., Ltd., Counter-claimant, represented by LG Display
Co., Ltd.

Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Counter-defendant,
represented by David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Margaret Branick-Abilla, Bryan Cave LLP, Richard
James Mooney, Rimon PC, Robert L. Stolebarger, Bryan Cave LLP,
Ross Christopher Paolino, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, Shannon
Christine Leong, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe & Stephen V.
Bomse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Lee F
Berger, Paul Hastings LLP.

Rockwell Automation Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by David
P Ross, Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell & Moring &
Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.

LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro Se,
David P Ross, Crowell & Moring LLP, Janet Irene Levine, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.

LG Display America, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by LG
Display America, Inc.

Compucom Systems Inc, Counter-defendant, represented by
Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro Se,
Christopher V. Fenlon, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., Mike McKool, McKool Smith, P.C.,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner & Melissa B Felder.

LG Display America, Inc., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro
Se.

Viewsonic Corporation, Counter-defendant, represented by Janet
Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.

LG Display Co., Ltd., (D, I, 09-1115), Counter-claimant, Pro Se,
Janet Irene Levine, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Jeffrey H. Howard, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jerome A.
Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Joshua Courtney Stokes, Crowell &
Moring & Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP.


NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective System Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that numerous Nissan 2013 and 2014
models have defective occupant classification system software,
which can prevent an air bag from deploying, a class action claims
in Federal Court in Manhattan.


OCWEN LOAN: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of homeowners, the law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C.
has filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The complaint alleges that
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC violated the law by failing to timely
present to county clerks documents proving that mortgage loans
have been satisfied.

The complaint is brought on behalf of Pennsylvania homeowners
whose mortgage loans have been serviced by Ocwen and who paid in
full all amounts due under their mortgages pursuant to a payoff
quote provided by Ocwen.  These homeowners subsequently requested
that Ocwen record a document proving that the mortgage loan has
been satisfied and paid off.  But Ocwen failed to do so within 60
days of its receipt of the borrower's written request.  On this
basis, plaintiff alleges that Ocwen has violated Pennsylvania's
Mortgage Satisfaction Act, and the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

Failure by the mortgage servicer to timely file the mortgage
satisfaction document can affect a homeowner's ability to
refinance his or her home and have other serious consequences.

If you have paid off a mortgage loan that was serviced by Ocwen,
and you believe that Ocwen failed to timely file a loan
satisfaction document with the county recorder's office where your
mortgage was recorded, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Eric Lechtzin of Berger & Montague, P.C. at 888-891-2289 or 215-
875-3038, or, by e-mail, at elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on the firm's website at
www.bergermontague.com or viewed in the Court's files.  The docket
number is 2:14-cv-02824-RBS.

Berger & Montague, P.C. also is investigating similar claims,
throughout the United States, relating to the practices of the
following mortgage servicers:

Bank of America, N.A.
CitiMortgage, Inc.
HSBC Mortgage Corporation
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Berger & Montague, P.C., with over 50 attorneys, represents
plaintiffs in complex and class action litigation.  The firm has
played lead roles in major cases for over 40 years, resulting in
recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes
they represent.


PERRIGO ISRAEL: Certification Hearing Held in Eltroxin Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several hearings on whether or not to certify a consolidated
lawsuit filed against Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. in relation to Eltroxin, took place
in December 2013 and January 2014, according to Perrigo Company
plc's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated
motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions;
however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the
reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent. Several hearings on whether
or not to certify the consolidated application took place in
December 2013 and January 2014.


PET CENTER: Recalls 3 oz bag of Lamb Crunchy's Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Center, Inc of Los Angeles, CA. is voluntarily recalling its 3
oz bag of Lamb Crunchy's dog treats (LAM-003) (UPC# 727348200038)
with date code 122015 product of USA, because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is a
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surface exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

This product was distributed to CA, WI, CO, and WA. to the
following distributors; Gelson's Market, General Pet, Nor-Sky Pet
Supply, and Independent Pet.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Salmonella was detected by the State of Colorado, Department of
Agriculture in a random sample.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 800-390-0575 Monday-Friday
between 7:30am through 4pm PST.


RITE AID: Court Revives Suit Over Lack of Seats for Cashiers
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Fourth District
Court of Appeal has revived a class action charging a major
drugstore chain with failing to provide its cashiers with seats,
in violation of state labor regulations.

While the trial court may yet decertify the class of Rite Aid
employees, Div. One ruled, its previous order decertifying the
class was erroneous because it considered the merits of the claim,
rather than the appropriateness of a class-wide remedy.  The court
on May 16 certified its May 2 opinion for publication.

The action by Kristin Hall, who worked at a Rite Aid store in San
Diego County, accuses the company of violating an Industrial
Welfare Commission regulation requiring that employees be provided
with seats "when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use
of seats."

The plaintiff's class certification motion was originally granted,
over the company's objections that individual issues would
predominate.

Rite Aid contends that its cashier/clerks, as Hall was classified,
perform duties that vary from store to store, and may involve
significant time away from the checkout stands.  On average, it
claimed, a cashier/clerk is only cashiering 42 percent of the
time, and is otherwise working in the stockroom or on the floor,
and must walk around, for example to retrieve controlled items
like liquor and tobacco, even during part of the time they are
assigned behind the counter.

Shortly before trial, San Diego Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis
granted the company's motion to decertify the class.  She
concluded that "individualized issues predominate as to whether
the 'nature of the work' of a cashier/clerk reasonably permits the
use of a suitable seat" and said she agreed with the analysis in
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a 2012 case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California requiring that a job
be assessed "as a whole" in determining whether seats must be
provided under the IWC rule.

But Justice Alex McDonald, writing for the Court of Appeal, said
the judge's reliance on Kilby was misplaced because the merits of
the claim were not before the court on the motion to decertify.
He cited Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53
Cal.4th 1004, in which the court laid out the framework for
certifying or decertifying classes in employment actions,
emphasizing the uniformity or lack of uniformity of the practices
complained of.

He wrote: "Here, as in Brinker and its progeny, Hall alleged (and
Rite Aid did not dispute) that Rite Aid had a uniform policy of
the type envisioned by Brinker: Rite Aid did not allow its
Cashier/Clerks to sit (and therefore provided no suitable seats
for its Cashier/Clerks) while they performed check-out functions
at the register.  Hall's theory of liability is that this uniform
policy was unlawful because section 14 [of IWC Wage Order 7-2001]
mandates the provision of suitable seats when the nature of the
work reasonably permits the use of seats, and the nature of the
work involved in performing check-out functions does reasonably
permit the use of seats.  Hall's proffered theory of liability is
that, regardless of the amount of time any particular
Cashier/Clerk might spend on duties other than check-out work,
Rite Aid's uniform policy transgresses section 14 because suitable
seats are not provided for that aspect of the employee's work that
can be reasonably performed while seated.

"It does not appear that any aspect central to Hall's theory of
recovery (i.e. what is Rite Aid's policy, and whether the nature
of the work involved in performing check-out functions would
reasonably permit the use of seats) would not be amenable to
common proof."

The ruling does not necessarily mean that the case will proceed to
trial as a class action, however.  Rite Aid can bring a motion for
summary adjudication or judgment on the pleadings in order to
raise substantive challenges prior to trial, the jurist said, or
the judge may decertify the class "for other and proper reasons."
The case is Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, 14 S.O.S. 2437.


ROME PACKING: Recalls Minced Crab Meat Due to Listeria Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rome Packing Co., Inc. has issued a voluntary recall of Ocean's
Catch brand minced crab meat after routine product sampling by the
company determined some of the finished products may have been
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes bacteria. Listeria
monocytogenes, is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them and return them to the place of purchase for a refund
or discard them.

The list of recalled products, are packaged in round plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), sold as refrigerated, includes:

6-ounce Ocean's Catch Crab Meat:

    lot number 101366 with a sell by date before 5/14/14;
    lot number 101507 with a sell by date before 5/20/14;
    lot number 101540 with a sell by date before 5/21/14;

8-ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Combo Meat:

    lot number 101372 with a sell by date before 5/14/14;
    lot number 101432 with a sell by date before 5/19/14;
    lot number 101474 with a sell by date before 5/20/14;

16-ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Combo Meat:

    lot number 101372 with a sell by date before 5/14/14;
    lot number 101391 with a sell by date before 5/16/14;
    lot number 101407 with a sell by date before 5/16/14;
    lot number 101432 with a sell by date before 5/19/14;
    lot number 101474 with a sell by date before 5/20/14;
    lot number 101539 with a sell by date before 5/21/14.

The products are distributed nationwide to retail stores including
but not limited to: Shaws Supermarkets, Market Basket and Dave's
Market. Consumers with questions may contact the company's
representative, John F. Whiteside, Jr. at (508)991-3333.

Any consumers who believe they may have become ill after eating
the products should contact their health care provider.

Rome Packing Co., Inc. is cooperating with the Food and Drug
Administration and Rhode Island Department of Health
investigation. Rome Packing Co., Inc. has initiated corrective
action in their processing plant to prevent this from occurring.


SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over "Imported from Italy" Olive Oil
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Safeway sells extra virgin
olive oil as "Imported from Italy" but the olives are neither
grown nor pressed there, merely shipped through the country and
bottled there, a class action claims in Alameda County Court in
Oakland, California.


SAM WON: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Dishwasher Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizeo Cipriano, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sam Won Gahk, Inc. (d/b/a Sam Won Gahk), Myung Joo
Park and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-03038-RRM-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
May 14, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked over 40
each week.

Mr. Cipriano disclosed that he worked long days as a dishwasher,
food preparer, porter and general assistant at the Defendants'
restaurant located in Flushing, New York.

Sam Won Gahk Inc. is a New York corporation, doing business as San
Won Gahk, a restaurant owned by the Individual Defendants.  The
Defendants own, operate and control a Chinese restaurant located
at 144-20 Northern Boulevard, in Flushing, New York, under the
name of San Won Gahk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com
                  lfranco@faillacelaw.com


SCOTT A. TUCKER: Removed "Clark" Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Amy Elizabeth Clark v.
Scott A Tucker, et al., Case No. CIVRS1401188, was removed from
the San Bernardino Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Riverside).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00972-R-RZ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kieran P. Ringgenberg, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
          E-mail: kringgenberg@bsfllp.com


SHERMAN PRODUCE: Recalls Bulk & Packaged Walnuts Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis-based Sherman Produce is voluntarily recalling walnuts
comprising of 241 cases of bulk walnuts packaged in 25 lb bulk
cardboard boxes and Schnucks brand 10 oz trays with UPC
00338390032 with best by dates 03/15 and 04/15 because the
products are potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

These products were sold to retailers in MO and IL from March -
May 2014.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after FDA sampling detected Listeria
monocytogenes in walnuts sampled at the facility. All walnuts
processed in the facility during the same timeframe as the product
found positive are being recalled.

Consumers who have purchased walnuts are urged not to consume
them. Consumers are advised to dispose of them or return them to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with any
questions may call Sherman Produce at 314-231-2896, 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. CST weekdays.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 2004 Owner-Operator Litigation Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 2004 owner-operator class action against Swift Transportation
Co., Inc. continues after adverse rulings against the company,
according to Swift Transportation Company's May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472, or the Garza Complaint. The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on
August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On
November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification
as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court granted the Company's petition for review, and on July 31,
2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court
of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic
appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original
denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the
trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter,
the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and
expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as
employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators
on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by
reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa
County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-
operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon
certification, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration as
well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging
dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to
the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the
named owner-operator class representative only contracted with the
Company for a three month period under a one year contract that no
longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, the
Company also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona
Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court erred in certifying
the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals
ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme
Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect
to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to
compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the
class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of
contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based
on statute of limitations. The Company intends to continue to
pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record,
which the Company believes demonstrates that the class is
improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no
merit. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability
and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Files Writ to Resolve Issues in "Sheer"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to address legal questions in
the Sheer Complaint, including issues with regards to arbitration,
according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL:Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court in
Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize
notice to the potential class members. On September 23, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who
are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On
September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to
compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further
denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion
for conditional class certification. The District Court also
denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration alleging that the
agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1
of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of
plaintiffs are alleged to be employees exempt from arbitration
agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published
decision "expressly held that a district court must determine
whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration
under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter". As a
consequence of this determination by the ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court to address the following legal question: where
transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce have
contracted to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, in addition to
disputes relating to the relationship created by the parties'
agreement, must the district court determine whether the contract
is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal
Arbitration Act or must the arbitrator do so? The Company intends
to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Drivers' Labor Lawsuit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face wage, meal and rest
employee class actions in the Superior Court of California and in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint. On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter
was removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative
class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the
California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest
periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from
employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of
proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which was then pending
before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the
Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell
Complaint was lifted. On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's
claims related to alleged meal and rest break violations under the
California Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by
the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29,
2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on
alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the
California Labor Code.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino, or the Rudsell
Complaint. The Rudsell matter has been stayed pending a resolution
in Burnell v Swift. Any claims related to orientation pay in the
Rudsell matter have been subsumed within the Montalvo v. Swift
class action matter.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal v. "Montalvo" Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company appealed the class certification of
Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation but its appeal
of class certification was denied, according to the company's May
7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
1827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to
state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand, which
appeal has been denied. The putative class includes employees
alleging that candidates for employment within the four year
statutory period in California were not paid the state mandated
minimum wage during their orientation phase. On July 29, 2013, the
court certified the class. The Company appealed the class
certification and the remand to state court but on April 10, 2014,
the Company's appeal of class certification was denied.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeals Driver Class in Wash. Overtime Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The limited certification of a class of Washington dedicated
drivers in the suit Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co.
of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation is under
appeal, according to Swift Transportation Company's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Complaint. The Slack Complaint was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State based
employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meals and rest
periods. On November 23, 2013 the court entered an order on
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified
the class as it pertains to dedicated route drivers and did not
certify any other class or claims including any class related to
over the road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The court also further
limited the class of dedicated drivers to only those dedicated
drivers that either begin or end their shift in the state of
Washington and therefore is a Washington based employee. Swift is
appealing the limited certification of the Washington dedicated
drivers.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Reaches Settlement in Virginia FCRA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation in a suit alleging violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC in the
hiring of drivers, resulted in the parties reaching a settlement
of all claims, according to Swift Transportation Company's May 7,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 23, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by James Ellis
III on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC; James Ellis III v.
Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC ("Swift Arizona") in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Civil
Action No. 3:13-CV-00473-JAG, or the Ellis Complaint. Mr. Ellis,
an applicant for a driver position, has alleged that the Swift's
disclosures regarding criminal background checks did not comply
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The class action
seeks to certify the FCRA claims as a class action, and in that
regard Mr. Ellis is seeking to represent a class of applicants
from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and West
Virginia over the five year period preceding the filing. Swift has
answered the complaint denying the allegations including the
allegations that a class should be certified. On February 5, 2014,
the plaintiff's filed a motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint to add plaintiff representatives and expand the class
from the original five states to a nationwide class. A mediation
on February 26, 2014 resulted in the parties reaching a settlement
of all claims. The amount of the settlement is immaterial and is
covered by Swift's employment practices and liability insurance
("EPLI"). Swift is responsible for the deductible on this EPLI
policy against which a percentage Swift's payment of legal
expenses have already been credited leaving an immaterial balance
to be paid for the deductible.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Utah Suit v. Central Refrigerated Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Refrigerated Service continues to face a suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, alleging
candidates for employment were not paid minimum wage for
orientation, travel, and training, according to Swift
Transportation Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On October 8, 2013, a collective action lawsuit was filed by Jacob
Roberts on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer
and John Does 1-10 ("CRS"): Jacob Roberts and Collective Action
Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.,
Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-00911-
EJF, or the Roberts Complaint. The putative nationwide class
includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within
the three year statutory period in Utah were not paid proper
compensation pursuant to the FLSA, specifically that the putative
collective action plaintiffs were not paid the state mandated
minimum wage for orientation, travel, and training.
The issue of collective action certification in the Roberts
Complaint must first be resolved before the court will address the
merits of the case, and the company retains all of the company's
defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of
collective action certification.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Utah FLSA Suit for Collective Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The arbitrator in a suit by owner-operators alleging that Central
Refrigerated Services, Inc., and Central Leasing, Inc.
misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, determined that the
issue of misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed
as a collective arbitration, according to Swift Transportation
Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed
by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually
and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes ("Central"): Gabriel Cilluffo,
Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf
themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central
Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson,
and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886, or the
Cilluffo Complaint. The putative class involves owner-operators
alleging that Central misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the FLSA, and that such owner-
operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises
a claim of forced labor and state law contractual claims. On
September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that
FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah
Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and not the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA"). The September 24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator
to determine the validity of proceeding as a collective
arbitration under the UAA, and then if the arbitrator determines
that such collective action is permitted, then the arbitrator is
to consider the plaintiff's FLSA claim. On November 8, 2012, the
California District Court entered a clarification order clarifying
that the plaintiff's FLSA claim was to proceed to collective
arbitration under the UUAA, but the plaintiff's forced labor claim
and state law contractual claims were to proceed as individual
arbitrations for those plaintiffs seeking to pursue those specific
claims. Central filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion
for interlocutory appeal of the California District Court's
orders, both of which were denied and the claims are proceeding to
collective and individual arbitration as originally ordered. On
December 9, 2013 the arbitrator determined that the issue of
misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a
collective arbitration, however the plaintiffs forced labor claim
and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach
of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and
not as a class.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Central Refrigerated Rebuts Cal. Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. filed an answer denying
allegations that candidates for employment in California were not
paid the state mandated minimum wage during their orientation
phase, according to Swift Transportation Company's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On November 7, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by Jorge
Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernadino, or the Calix
Complaint. The putative class includes employees alleging that
candidates for employment within the four year statutory period in
California were not paid the state mandated minimum wage during
their orientation phase. On December 13, 2013, Central filed an
answer denying the allegations.


TARGET CORP: ISS Wants Shareholders to Vote Against 7 Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Finkle and Shailaja Sharma, writing for Reuters, report that
proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services has
recommended that Target Corp. shareholders vote against seven of
the company's 10 directors, saying the board failed to manage
risks that led to a massive data breach.

Target disclosed in December that a cyber attack had resulted in
the theft of at least 40 million payment card numbers and 70
million other pieces of customer data weeks before Christmas.

ISS blamed Target's audit and corporate responsibility committees,
which oversee risks such as fraud, for being "inadequately
prepared" for risks of doing business in electronic commerce.

"It appears that failure of the committees to ensure appropriate
management of these risks set the stage for the data breach, which
has resulted in significant losses to the company and its
shareholders," ISS said in its report.

Ahead of Target's shareholder meeting next month, ISS asked for a
vote against directors including interim non-executive chair of
the board Roxanne Austin, and others, namely Mary Minnick, Anne
Mulcahy, Derica Rice, Calvin Darden, Henrique De Castro and James
Johnson.

The proxy firm also said a policy to separate chairman and CEO
roles could improve the independent oversight of management.

Target's board had not made a decision on whether to continue with
an independent chair and will re-assess its leadership structure
once a new CEO is announced, the company told Reuters in an email
statement.

". . . following the criminal attack that resulted in the data
breach, the board is re-examining the entire risk oversight
structure, including senior management roles and reporting
structures, as well as board oversight," Target said.

Earlier this month, Target removed Chief Executive Gregg
Steinhafel, who had been in the top job since 2008, and named John
Mulligan as interim chief executive.


TRANS UNION: Court Narrows Claims in "Larson" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Trans Union moved to dismiss an amended complaint in the putative
class action lawsuit captioned BRIAN DOUGLAS LARSON, Plaintiff, v.
TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-05726-WHO, (N.D.
Cal.), alleging that Mr. Larson received an incomplete and
inaccurate credit disclosure from Trans Union in violation of the
Federal Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1681 et seq.
(FCRA) and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code section 1785.1 et seq. (CCRAA). The disclosure received
by Mr. Larson was ambiguous but he did not allege that Trans Union
failed to provide any information.

In an order dated April 14, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/0A0S7dfrom Leagle.com, District Judge William H.
Orrick stated that federal law requires that information be
"clearly and accurately" disclosed to the consumer, and he will
deny the motion to dismiss on the federal causes of action because
of the ambiguity in the disclosure. However, he continued, while
the state law has the same general overall purpose to require
disclosure of information, it does not contain the "clearly and
accurately" requirement and Larson did not plead that information
was not disclosed. For that reason, Judge Orrick granted the
motion to dismiss on the state law causes of action.  In addition,
the motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend on Mr.
Larson's Second and Fourth Causes of Action alleging violations of
the CCRAA, and denied on Mr. Larson's First and Third Causes of
Action alleging violations of the FCRA. Trans Union has 20 days to
answer the pending Amended Complaint.

Brian Douglas Larson, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie
-- andy@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer.

Brian Douglas Larson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carol McLean Brewer
-- carol@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, Gregory
Joseph Gorski -- ggorski@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and
Mailman PC & John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com --
Francis and Mailman, P.C.

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Frontino --
bfrontino@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jeffrey
Babcox Bell -- jbell@stroock.com -- Stroock Stroock Lavan, Julia
B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, Stephen Julian Newman -- SNEWMAN@STROOCK.COM -- Stroock
& Stroock & Lavan LLP, Benjamin Gary Diehl -- bdiehl@stroock.com
-- Stroock Stroock Lavan LLP & Jason S Yoo -- jsyoo@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over Package Rates
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that United Parcel Service charges
rates for packages larger than the packages actually are, a
customer claims in a class action in Monmouth County Court in
Freehold, N.J.


US FOODSERVICE: Hunton & Williams Settles Class Suit for $297MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton & Williams LLP has reached a $297 million settlement on
behalf of plaintiffs in a multidistrict class action against
U.S. Foodservice, Inc. and its former parent company, Koninklijke
Ahold, N.V. The settlement agreement is pending approval by the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Richard L. Wyatt Jr., partner and co-leader of Hunton & Williams'
litigation department, who led the firm's legal team, had several
comments:

"This is a victory for hospitals and restaurants, which are among
some of the largest customers of U.S. Foodservice."

"We are pleased with this result and know that it will bring
recompense for the hundreds of plaintiffs, mostly hospitals and
restaurants that want to pay a fair price for the goods and foods
they provide."

"The parties worked hard to reach this settlement, and we are
confident the court will approve it."

This agreement is believed to be one of the largest civil RICO
class action settlements in recent history and was reached on
behalf of a class of customers, primarily hospitals and
restaurants, who purchased products from U.S. Foodservice under
cost-plus arrangements between 1998' 2005.  The class claimed that
it was defrauded by U.S. Foodservice when it created six companies
that it controlled to inflate the "cost component" of the products
that were subject to the arrangement.

The parties entered into settlement talks when the United States
Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court opinion
affirming certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs for
RICO and breach of contract violations against U.S. Foodservice.
Previously, U.S. Foodservice settled a similar claim made by the
United States for approximately $30 million.

The Hunton team representing the plaintiffs-class of customers was
led by Richard L. Wyatt Jr. and included Todd M. Stenerson,
Torsten M. Kracht and Ryan P. Phair.

Plaintiffs were also represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, LLP, Drubner Hartley & Hellman, LLC, Whatley Kallas, LLP,
The McNair Law Firm, P.A., Gray and White, LLP and Foote, Mielkie,
Chavez and O'Neil, LLC. U.S. Koninklijke Ahold, N.V (also known as
Royal Ahold) and U.S. Foodservice were represented by White & Case
LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

                  About Hunton & Williams LLP

Hunton & Williams -- http://www.hunton.com-- provides legal
services to corporations, financial institutions, governments and
individuals, as well as to a broad array of other entities.  Since
its establishment more than a century ago, Hunton & Williams has
grown to more than 800 lawyers serving clients in 100 countries
from 19 offices around the world.  Its practice has a strong
industry focus on energy, financial services and life sciences,
and our experience extends to practice areas including bankruptcy
and creditors' rights, commercial litigation, corporate
transactions and securities law, intellectual property,
international and government relations, real estate, regulatory
law, products liability, and privacy and cybersecurity.


VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Faulty Audi Brakes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Volkswagen for allegedly designing faulty
brakes and rotors on its Audi Q7 has been dismissed from federal
court.  U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno found that Sandra
Speier-Roche, the lead plaintiff in the class action, failed to
establish elements of her claims and that those claims were time-
barred.

"The fundamental problem with plaintiff's claim is that, by the
plain language of the vehicle warranty, the brakes on plaintiff's
vehicle were only covered under the warranty for the earlier of 12
months or 12,000 miles from the date of lease, and it is
undisputed that defendant did not charge plaintiff for brake
repair until after she had exceeded the time of warranty coverage,
that is, after more than twelve months and 12,000 miles had
expired after her lease signing date," the dismissal order filed
April 30 stated.

Judge Moreno's order states that the plaintiff attempted to
circumvent the warranty limitation by arguing that the warranty
terms applicable to brake parts, limiting coverage to the earlier
of 12 months or 12,000 miles from the date of lease, do not apply
to her claim.  She argued the alleged "Brake System Defect" is
caused by defects in material and/or workmanship and components
that are installed in it.

As a result, the rotors and the pads wear out prematurely, she
claimed.

"Put simply, she is attempting to allege that there is a defect in
the vehicle design itself, the symptom of which is a defective
brake component, so the applicable coverage period is a term
extending to the earlier of 48-months or 50,000 miles," the order
states.

Judge Moreno found the argument unpersuasive.

"The plain terms of the vehicle warranty and plaintiff's own
allegations preclude the court from adopting plaintiff's proposed
interpretation as applicable to her claims," the order states.
"Plaintiff's own allegations in the amended complaint limit the
court's considerations to defects her vehicle's brake pads and
rotors."

The plaintiff's amended complaint does not plead that a single
component of her vehicle is allegedly defective other than the
brake pads and rotors, Judge Moreno ruled.

At the inception of the lawsuit, the alleged "brake defect" was
defined as premature "wear" of the "brake pads and rotors."

"The amended complaint which purports to insert the word 'system'
in between the words 'brake' and 'defect' does not identify any
additional component part of the vehicle or any 'system' that
either failed or is alleged to be defective," the order states.

"Plaintiff first brought her vehicle to the dealership complaining
of the 'squeaking' of her brakes; the dealership diagnosed
problems limited to the brake pads, front and back, and rotors,
and finally, all cited repairs involved the front and back brake
rotors and the brake pads."

Altogether, the only "acts" pleaded in the amended complaint
regarding the vehicle's brakes are alleged premature wear and
repair of the brake pads and rotors, according to Judge Moreno's
order.

"Therefore, by the plaintiff's allegations and the plain terms of
the warranty, this court finds that the applicable warranty period
here is that which is relevant to brake parts . . ."

Judge Speier-Roche alleged in the complaint that she leased an
Audi Q7 in 2007 and also received a limited warranty that covered
the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any defective
manufacturing up to 12 months and 12,000 miles.

Judge Speier-Roche claimed the brakes and rotors were defective
and required frequent replacement, in violation of express and
implied warranties, and filed her lawsuit on behalf of Audi owners
since 2007.

The complaint alleges that Volkswagen violated the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and breached their
written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Judge Speier-Roche was represented by Michael S. Olin of Michael
S. Olin PA; Richard E. Norman and R. Martin Weber Jr. --
mweber@crowleynorman.com -- of Crowley Norman LLP; and Matthew R.
Mendelsohn and Adam M. Slater -- aslater@mskf.net -- of Mazie
Slater Katz & Freeman LLC.

Volkswagen was represented by Larry M. Roth -- lroth@rumberger.com
-- and Michael D. Begey -- mbegey@rumberger.com -- of Rumberger
Kirk & Caldwell and Jeffrey L. Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- and Michael B. Gallub -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- of
Herzfeld & Rubin PC.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case
number: 1:14-CV-20107


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Shehan" Suit Alleging Telecom Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Shehan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 1:14-cv-00900-JHE (N.D. Ala., May
14, 2014) alleges violations of The Telecommunications Act of
1996.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@mgjdlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Improper Credit Check
----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania woman
filed a putative class action in federal court on May 19, alleging
Wells Fargo Bank NA illegally dinged her credit history when it
ran an unauthorized credit check to open a credit card account she
hadn't asked for.

Lisa Signore seeks to represent a class of bank customers whose
credit has been negatively affected by the bank's running credit
checks to sell the customers products they didn't want, according
to the complaint.

The bank incentivizes its employees to cross-sell customers on
other Wells Fargo products, pressuring bank workers to coerce
customers into getting credit products even when they have
refused, the suit says.

"Ms. Signore never gave written instructions to defendant to
obtain and/or release to a third party a consumer report of which
Ms. Signore was the subject . . . nor has defendant ever been
ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction to [obtain] a
consumer report about plaintiff," the complaint says.  "Defendant
therefore had no permissible purpose for obtaining the consumer
credit report about Ms. Signore."

Ms. Signore alleges in the complaint that on a visit to a Wells
Fargo branch in East Norriton, Pennsylvania, in July 2013, a bank
employee tried to sell her on several different products.

The banker suggested Ms. Signore open a Wells Fargo checking
account, then a "home rebate" credit card account, both of which
the plaintiff refused, according to the complaint.

But several days later, Ms. Signore received a letter from Wells
Fargo thanking her for opening a home rebate credit account, the
suit says.  The bank hadn't the authority to open a new credit
account or run the credit report to open such an account, the suit
says.

To open the account, Wells Fargo ran what's known as a "hard
inquiry" on her credit report, according to the suit, and a hard
inquiry can be seen by other potential creditors and has a
negative impact on a consumer's creditworthiness.

Ms. Signore never gave written permission to perform the inquiry,
and the bank therefore had no right to ding her credit, the suit
claims.

Further, if the bank really had been simply verifying her existing
account information, the bank could have used a different method
of checking her account that wouldn't have harmed her credit, the
suit says.

The complaint contains a single count of a Fair Credit Reporting
Act violation.

Ms. Signore is represented by James A. Francis, John Soumilas,
David A. Searles and Lauren K.W. Brennan of Francis & Mailman PC.

The case is Signore v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case number 2:14-cv-
02834, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Half Gallon Silk Light Original Soymilk
----------------------------------------------------------------
WhiteWave Foods is voluntarily recalling half gallon containers of
Silk Light Original Soymilk because they may contain undeclared
almondmilk. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to almond
run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

We believe fewer than 21,402 half gallon units of product have
been directly shipped to retailers and wholesalers in the states
of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The product recall is taking place due to an inadvertent error
related to using the wrong carton packaging. It is not due to
contamination in the manufacturing process.

WhiteWave's sales team is working with distributors to actively
recover any impacted product remaining on store shelves, and the
Company has implemented measures to prevent this from happening in
the future.

HOW TO IDENTIFY THE RECALLED PRODUCT

The half gallon containers are printed with "use by" dates of
either June 22, 2014 or June 23, 2014 (printed as 06/22/14 or
06/23/14) on the front of the carton above the pour spout and a
Universal Product Code (UPC) of 25293 60101 on the back of the
package. This recall only applies to the plant codes listed below.

    06/22 or 23/14 hh:mm 48-0994 EH3 - 5 1
    06/22 or 23/14 hh:mm 48-0994 EH3 - 5 2
    06/22 or 23/14 hh:mm 48-0994 EH3 - 4 3
    06/22 or 23/14 hh:mm 48-0994 EH3 - 4 4

Consumers should look for UPC information on the back of the
individual half gallons and the lot codes on the front of the half
gallon above the pour spout.

Product safety and consumer confidence is of utmost importance to
WhiteWave. Consumers who purchased the product may return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers
with questions can contact the Company at 1-866-663-4349 during
extended business hours May 19, 2014 through Wednesday, May 21,
2014 from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm central time. Beginning Thursday,
May 22, 2014 consumers with questions can contact the Company from
8:00 am to 5:00 pm central time Monday-Friday.

The Foods and Drug Administration has been notified of this
recall, and we are coordinating our communications efforts with
the organization Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE).


WPX ENERGY: Methodology in Determining Royalty Payments Accepted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Garfield County, Colorado issued its order
rejecting the proposed standard by plaintiffs in a suit by royalty
interest owners against WPX Energy, Inc. and accepting WPX's
position as to the methodology to use in determining royalty
payments, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging the company improperly calculated oil
and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received
from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly
charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in
excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify
a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of
royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation
errors. The company entered into a final partial settlement
agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for
certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of
royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules
to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved
claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments,
established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding
in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. The
company prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on
the first reserved claim regarding whether it is allowed to deduct
mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease
agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether
the company is required to have proportionately increased the
value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether the company did so
and are entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation
costs in calculating royalty payments. Plaintiffs had claimed
damages of approximately $20 million plus interest for the period
from July 2000 to July 2008. The court issued pretrial orders
finding that the company does bear the burden of demonstrating
enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct transportation
costs and that the enhancement test must be applied on a monthly
basis in order to determine the reasonableness of post-production
transportation costs. Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue
of whether the company has met that burden. Following that trial,
the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard
and accepting the company's position as to the methodology to use
in determining the standard by which the company's activity should
be judged. The company is in the process of conducting an
accounting under that standard. However, it continues to believe
its royalty calculations have been properly determined in
accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and
Colorado law.


WPX ENERGY: Still Faces Suits by Royalty Owners in N.M. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. continues to face lawsuits filed by hydrocarbon
royalty owners and mineral interest owners in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico, according to the
company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the company in
the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently
alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip
condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraud concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of
gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in
Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment
Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating
to production, payments and future reporting. This matter has been
removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico. In
August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting
and injunction.


WPX ENERGY: Still Faces Suit by Natural Gas Buyers in Nev. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. is currently a defendant in a class action filed
on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas and
pending in the federal court in Nevada, according to the company's
May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The company is currently a
defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers
of natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to
the federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summary
judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the company and most of
the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. On
January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in
the company's favor. When a final order is entered against the one
remaining defendant, the Colorado plaintiffs may appeal the order.


WPX ENERGY: Nevada Antitrust Suit Elevated to Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the Western States Antitrust Litigation filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court after
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
a summary judgment ruling in favor of defendants in 2013,
according to WPX Energy, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted the company's
joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs'
state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the
FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court
also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.
The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On April 10, 2013, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on the Western
States Antitrust Litigation.  The panel held that the Natural Gas
Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims,
reversing the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants.
The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend
complaints. Defendants' filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court.


* Justice Dep't Probes Price-Fixing, Bid Rigging in Auto Sector
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an investigation into price-
fixing and bid-rigging in the auto parts industry has mushroomed
into the Justice Department's largest criminal antitrust probe
ever, and it's not over yet.

The investigation, made public four years ago with FBI raids in
the Detroit area, has led to criminal charges against dozens of
people and companies, stretched across continents and reverberated
through an industry responsible for supplying critical car
components.

The collusion has also saddled drivers with millions of dollars in
extra costs.

"It's a very, very safe assumption that U.S. consumers paid more,
and sometimes significantly more, for their automobiles as a
result of this conspiracy," Brent Snyder, a deputy assistant
attorney general in the antitrust division, said in an interview.

So far, 34 individuals have been charged and 27 companies have
pleaded guilty or agreed to do so, the Justice Department says.
Collectively, they have agreed to pay more than $2.3 billion in
fines.  New cases have arisen with regularity, with Attorney
General Eric Holder promising last September that investigators
"would check under every hood and kick every tire."

The most recent development came on May 22, when an executive from
a Japanese company was charged with conspiring to fix the prices
of heater control panels sold to Toyota and with persuading
workers to destroy evidence.

Officials say the investigation stands out not just for its scope
but also for the cooperation the authorities have received from
Japan, Australia and other countries.  Despite the challenges of
prosecuting foreign nationals, the Justice Department has won
guilty pleas from a series of Japanese executives who opted to get
their punishment over with rather than remain under indictment in
their home countries and subject to career-crippling travel
restrictions.

Though the techniques and strategies sometimes differed, the
executives generally carried out the collusion by trading coded
emails, meeting at remote locations and destroying documents to
avoid paper trails.

With an eye toward eliminating competition and maximizing profits,
they exploited an industry that experts say is in some ways
vulnerable to collusion: There are a finite number of purchasers
and suppliers, there's steady pressure among companies to cut
prices -- and car parts, unlike certain products that have a great
deal of variability -- are generally standardized and homogeneous.

"The firms will just make more money if they're able to reach and
stick to an agreement to collectively charge higher prices so that
customers can't get them to bid against each other," said
Spencer Weber Waller, director of the Institute for Antitrust
Consumer Studies at the Loyola University Chicago law school.
"The problem is, of course, it's a felony in the United States."

The Justice Department first publicly surfaced aspects of the
investigation when FBI agents in Detroit raided the offices of
Denso Corp, Yazaki North America and Tokai Rika.  All three
companies have pleaded guilty to their roles in price-fixing and
bid-rigging schemes.

Since the raids, the probe has broadened to encompass about $5
billion worth of auto parts, including seat belts, ignition coils,
steering wheels, air bags, windshield wipers and rubber parts that
dampen vibration.

Similar cartels have formed in industries ranging from oil and gas
to cement and vitamins, though there's debate among economists
about how long they can last, given the constant incentive for one
member to cheat the others and the tendency to collapse under
their own weight as they keep growing, said Daniel Crane, a
University of Michigan law professor.

But the collusion in these cases, which in some instances lasted
more than a decade, was "deftly done," said Joe Wiesenfelder,
executive editor of Cars.com, who has followed the auto parts
investigation.

"If they get too greedy and they make their prices too high, then
someone smells a rat," he said.  "When they set their prices and
fixed their prices, they had to do it in a way that wasn't obvious
and that took into account the entire market, including suppliers
that weren't involved."

Mr. Wiesenfelder said that while the collusion affected car
consumers, it's hard to tell how much the investigation has been
noticed by the average driver.

"It's kind of abstract to consumers," he said.  "It's not that
prices were fixed on cars.  That would really hit home."

But there are indications the industry is chastened.

For instance, Bridgestone Corp., a tire and rubber company that
pleaded guilty this year, announced that it would strengthen its
compliance, discipline employees and withhold a portion of
compensation from certain board members and executives.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department says it's looking into
additional misconduct in an investigation that bears all the
hallmarks of classic antitrust law-breaking.

"This one," Mr. Snyder said, "has it all."


* Number of Suits Over Mergers Bigger in 2013, Report Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that antitrust
lawyers at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of
Justice reviewed fewer mergers and challenged fewer deals in
fiscal year 2013, according to the agencies' annual merger review
report released on May 21.

But the numbers tell only part of the story.  Although there
weren't as many matters, two of them were enormous: DOJ suits
blocking the merger of US Airways and American Airlines and
Anheuser-Busch InBev's proposed acquisition of Grupo Modelo.  The
cases settled with substantial divestitures.

In fiscal year 2013, the number of deals subject to review under
the Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger notification program dropped 7
percent, from 1,429 in fiscal year 2012 to 1,326.  That's the
lowest since 2010.

The number of enforcement actions declined even more, falling by
14 percent.  In fiscal year 2013, the agencies brought 38 actions,
compared to 44 in 2012.

The FTC had no headline-grabbing suits like DOJ, but agency
lawyers brought more challenges overall than their counterparts in
DOJ's Antitrust Division.  During fiscal year 2013, the FTC filed
23 merger enforcement actions, two less than in 2012.  Sixteen
cases were resolved via consent decrees and two mergers were
abandoned.  The FTC brought one suit in federal district court,
against Idaho-based St. Luke's Health System's acquisition of a
multiple-specialty physician practice group. The agency filed four
administrative suits.

In 2013, the Antitrust Division challenged 15 merger transactions
compared to 19 in 2012.  In seven of these challenges, DOJ lawyers
filed a complaint in federal district court.

The FTC in 2013 issued 25 second requests for information about
pending deals, compared to 20 the year before.  DOJ issued 22,
down from 29 in 2012.  It's the first year since 2008 when the FTC
issued more second requests than DOJ.

Hospital mergers were the most likely to get a close look -- the
agencies issued second requests in five of 44 hospital
transactions.  That was followed by chemical manufacturers, where
four of 74 deals were subject to second requests.

The best bet for dodging antitrust review? Deals involving
securities, commodity contracts and other financial instruments.
There were 135 of them, but not one got a second look.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,280 Fibro Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 2,280 asbestos-related cases pending
against Standard Motor Products, Inc., 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: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998.  When we originally acquired
this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed after September 2001.  Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense of such claims.

Actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-
related liabilities conducted a study to estimate our potential
claim liability as of August 31, 2013.  The updated study has
estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments,
excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance
carriers, ranging from $24.4 million to $37.4 million for the
period through 2058. The change from the prior year study was a
$2.7 million decrease for the low end of the range and a $4.1
million decrease for the high end of the range.  The decrease in
the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at
both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual
experience over the prior twelve months.  Based on the information
contained in the actuarial study and all other available
information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount
within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any
other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we
compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required.  Based upon the results of
the August 31, 2013 actuarial study, no adjustment to the asbestos
liability was recorded in our consolidated financial statements as
the difference between our recorded liability and the liability in
the actuarial report at the low end of the range was not material.
According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as
incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated to range from $27.4 million to $48.1 million during the
same period.

At December 31, 2013, approximately 2,280 cases were outstanding
for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities.
Since inception in September 2001 through December 31, 2013, the
amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $14.9 million.
A substantial increase in the number of new claims or increased
settlement payments or awards of damages could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.

Given the uncertainties associated with projecting asbestos-
related matters into the future and other factors outside our
control, we cannot give any assurance that significant increases
in the number of claims filed against us will not occur, that
asbestos-related damages or settlement awards will not exceed the
amount we have in reserve, or that additional provisions will not
be required. Management will continue to monitor the circumstances
surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether
additional reserves and provisions may be necessary. We plan on
performing a similar annual actuarial analysis during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future."

Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an
independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a
focus on the original equipment service market. The Company
operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and
Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment
manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery
cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment
manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air
conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power
window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January
2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection,
a privately-held company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Paid $930MM to WR Grace Trusts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sealed Air Corporation subsidiary paid $930 million in cash to
trusts for asbestos-related personal injury claims and asbestos-
related property damage claims created pursuant to W.R. Grace &
Co.'s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, 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.

On February 3, 2014, the remaining conditions to the effectiveness
of the Grace Pl Settlement Plan and the Settlement agreement were
satisfied or waived by the relevant parties and the PI Settlement
Plan became effective with Grace emerging from bankruptcy (the
"Effective Date"). Pursuant to the Settlement agreement and the PI
Settlement Plan, on the Effective Date, the Company's subsidiary,
Cryovac, Inc., paid cash consideration, consisting of cash
payments in the aggregate amount of $930 million, to the WRG
Asbestos PI Trust and the WRG Asbestos PD Trust and transferred
the Settlement Shares to the WRG Asbestos PI Trust, in each case
reflecting adjustments made in accordance with the Settlement
agreement. To fund the cash payment, we used $555 million of cash
and cash equivalents and utilized borrowings of $260 million from
our revolving credit facility and $115 million from our accounts
receivable securitization programs.

In connection with the issuance of the Settlement Shares and their
transfer to the WRG Asbestos PI Trust by Cryovac, the Company
entered into a Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February
3, 2014 (the "Registration Rights Agreement"), with the WRG
Asbestos PI Trust as initial holder of the Settlement Shares.
Under the Registration Rights Agreement, the Company will be
required to use reasonable best efforts to prepare and file with
the SEC a shelf registration statement covering resales of the
Settlement Shares on or prior to 60 days after February 3, 2014,
and to use reasonable best efforts to cause such shelf
registration statement to be declared effective by the SEC as soon
as reasonably practicable.

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection business. The Company
serves a range of end markets, including food and beverage
processing, food service, retail, health care and industrial,
commercial and consumer applications. The Company's brands include
bubbles Wrap brand cushioning, Cryovac brand food packaging
solutions and Diversey brand cleaning and hygiene solutions. The
Company operates in four segments: food and beverage,
institutional and laundry and protective packaging, and other
category, which includes its medical applications and new venture
businesses. On November 14, 2012, the Company completed the sale
Diversey G.K. (Diversey Japan).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG's Liability for A&E Reserves was $384MM
------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s liability for asbestos and
environmental reserves was $384 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.

Establishing property and casualty insurance reserves for claims
related to environmental exposures, asbestos and other mass tort
claims is subject to uncertainties that are significantly greater
than those presented by other types of claims. For this group of
claims, traditional actuarial techniques that rely on historical
loss development trends cannot be used and a range of reasonably
possible losses cannot be estimated. In addition, accruals
(included in other liabilities) have been recorded for various
environmental and occupational injury and disease claims and other
contingencies arising out of the railroad operations disposed of
by American Premier's predecessor, Penn Central Transportation
Company ("PCTC") and its subsidiaries, prior to its bankruptcy
reorganization in 1978 and certain manufacturing operations
disposed of by American Premier and Great American Financial
Resources, Inc. ("GAFRI").

AFG paid $124 million in the second quarter of 2013 related to the
settlement of the A.P. Green asbestos claim in its property and
casualty operations that had been accrued in prior years. AFG
completed a comprehensive study of its asbestos and environmental
("A&E") exposures in the third quarter of 2013 with the assistance
of specialty actuarial, engineering and consulting firms and
outside counsel. The study resulted in A&E charges of $54 million
for the property and casualty group and $22 million for the former
railroad and manufacturing operations. In the third quarter of
2012, AFG completed an in-depth internal review of its A&E
exposures, which resulted in A&E charges of $31 million for the
property and casualty group and $2 million for the former railroad
and manufacturing operations. In the second quarter of 2011, AFG
completed a comprehensive study of A&E exposures with the
assistance of specialty actuarial, engineering and consulting
firms and outside counsel, which resulted in A&E charges of $50
million for the property and casualty group and $9 million for the
former railroad and manufacturing operations.

The insurance group's liability for asbestos and environmental
reserves was $384 million at December 31, 2013; related
recoverables from reinsurers (net of allowances for doubtful
accounts) at that date were $83 million.

At December 31, 2013, American Premier and its subsidiaries had
liabilities for environmental and personal injury claims and other
contingencies aggregating $86 million. The environmental claims
consist of a number of proceedings and claims seeking to impose
responsibility for hazardous waste remediation costs related to
certain sites formerly owned or operated by the railroad and
manufacturing operations. Remediation costs are difficult to
estimate for a number of reasons, including the number and
financial resources of other potentially responsible parties, the
range of costs for remediation alternatives, changing technology
and the time period over which these matters develop. The personal
injury claims and other contingencies include pending and expected
claims, primarily by former employees of PCTC, for injury or
disease allegedly caused by exposure to excessive noise, asbestos
or other substances in the workplace and other labor disputes.

At December 31, 2013, GAFRI had a liability of approximately $10
million for environmental costs and certain other matters
associated with the sales of its former manufacturing operations.

While management believes AFG has recorded adequate reserves, the
outcome is uncertain and could result in liabilities that may vary
from amounts AFG has currently recorded. Such amounts could have a
material effect on AFG's future results of operations and
financial condition.

In addition, AFG and its subsidiaries are involved in litigation
from time to time, generally arising in the ordinary course of
business. This litigation may include, but is not limited to,
general commercial disputes, lawsuits brought by policyholders,
employment matters, reinsurance collection matters and actions
challenging certain business practices of insurance subsidiaries.
None of these matters are expected to have a material adverse
impact on AFG's results of operations or financial condition.

American Financial Group, Inc. (AFG) is a holding company, which
through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in property and
casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products
for businesses and in the sale of traditional fixed and fixed-
indexed annuities in the individual, bank and education markets.
The Company's segment includes: property and casualty insurance,
annuity, run-off long-term care and life and other. In August
2012, the Company sold its Medicare supplement and critical
illness businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Had 127 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 127 asbestos-related claims filed against
one of Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of December
31, 2013, there were 96 asserted claims for non-malignant cases
with the cumulative relief sought of up to $24 million, and 31
asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to $11 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$616 million at December 31, 2013 and $751 million at December 31,
2012. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred
Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon
the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future
asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted
basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. It is possible Duke
Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the
recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages an
aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy
Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance
retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $897 million in
excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $649 million at December 31, 2013 and $781 million
at December 31, 2012. These amounts are classified in Other within
Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any
uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims.
Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is
probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a
strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) is an energy company. Duke
Energy operates in the United States primarily through its direct
and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(Duke Energy Carolinas), Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy Carolinas),
Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
(Progress Energy Florida), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy
Ohio), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as
well as in Latin America through Duke Energy International, LLC
(DEI). Duke Energy's segment includes U.S. Franchised Electric and
Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy. In
December 2012, the Company's subsidiary acquired CGE Group's
Iberoamericana de Energia Ibener S.A. (Ibener) subsidiary in
Chile. In June 2013, Duke Energy Corp acquired an undisclosed
minority stake in Clean Power Finance Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Recorded $284.3MM Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation reported asbestos-related reserves totaling
$284.3 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2013, asbestos-related reserves were $284.3
million and $206.6 million on a gross and net basis, respectively.
Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not reported
reserves for A&E exposures were $165.3 million and $106.9 million,
respectively, at December 31, 2013. Inception-to-date net paid
losses and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures
totaled $398.0 million at December 31, 2013, which includes $79.1
million of litigation-related expense.

Markel Corporation is a financial holding company serving a range
of markets. The Company markets and underwrites specialty
insurance products. The Company operates in three segments: the
Excess and Surplus Lines, the Specialty Admitted, and the London
markets. It also owns interests in industrial and service
businesses, which operate outside of the specialty insurance
marketplace. On January 1, 2012, the Company acquired Thompson
Insurance Enterprises, LLC (THOMCO). On July 13, 2011, the Company
acquired PartnerMD, LLC. In April 2012, its subsidiary, Markel
Ventures, acquired a majority interest in Havco WP LLC. In July
2012, Markel Corporation announced that Ellicott Dredge
Enterprises, LLC, through its subsidiary Rohr International Dredge
Holdings, Inc., acquired IDRECO GmbH. In January 2013, OneBeacon
Insurance Group Ltd sold Essentia Insurance Company to the
Company. In May 2013, it announced that it has completed its
acquisition of Alterra Capital Holdings Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend NJ Take-Home Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a so-called "take home" suit pending in a New Jersey
court, 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 September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against Atlantic City
Electric Company ("ACE")(among other defendants) asserting claims
under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The
complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a
former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma
was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on
his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of
action against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if
it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the
complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for,
among other things, the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of
earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and
death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At December 31, 2013,
ACE has concluded that a loss is probable with respect to this
matter and has recorded an estimated loss contingency liability,
which is included in the liability for general litigation as of
December 31, 2013. However, due to the inherent uncertainty of
litigation, ACE is unable to estimate a maximum amount of possible
loss because the damages sought are indeterminate and the matter
involves facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the
facts of the "take-home" cause of action recognized by the New
Jersey courts.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company, that, through
regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas (Power Delivery):
Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light
Company (DPL) and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE). As of
December 31, 2012, the Company segments include Power Delivery,
consisting of the operations of Pepco, DPL and ACE, engaged in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas, Pepco Energy Services
and Other Non-Regulated, consisting primarily of the operations of
PCI. PHI Service Company, a subsidiary service company of PHI,
provides a range of support services, including legal, accounting,
treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services, to
PHI and its operating subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Had $36MM Reserves for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims
were $36 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.

As of December 31, 2013, known environmental and asbestos claims
have not had a material impact on the Company's operations,
because its subsidiaries generally did not insure large industrial
companies that are subject to significant environmental or
asbestos exposures prior to 1986 when an absolute exclusion was
incorporated into standard policy language.

The Company's net reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
relating to asbestos and environmental claims were $36 million and
$34 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The
Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
relating to asbestos and environmental claims were $59 million and
$56 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Increases
in net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and
environmental claims were approximately $5 million, $2 million and
$1 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Net paid losses
and loss expenses for asbestos and environmental claims were
approximately $3 million in 2013, $2 million in 2012 and $3
million in 2011. The estimation of these liabilities is subject to
significantly greater than normal variation and uncertainty
because it is difficult to make an actuarial estimate of these
liabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted actuarial
methodology for these exposures and the potential effect of
significant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues,
as well as the cost of litigating the legal issues. Additionally,
the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of
such damages to financially responsible parties are highly
uncertain.

W. R. Berkley Corporation (W. R. Berkley) is an insurance holding
company. W. R. Berkley operates in the four segments of the
property casualty insurance business: Specialty, Regional,
Alternative Markets, Reinsurance and International. Specialty
includes excess and surplus lines and admitted specialty lines.
Regional include commercial lines property casualty. Alternative
Markets include excess workers' compensation, monoline workers'
compensation, accident and health, and insurance services.
Reinsurance, on both a facultative and treaty basis and
participating in business written through Lloyd's of London.
International business includes selected regions throughout the
world. In June 2011, it announced the formation of Berkley
Technology Underwriters, LLC. In April 2012, it formed Berkley
Public Entity Managers, LLC. In May 2012, the Company formed a
marine division of its Berkley Offshore Underwriting Managers
operating unit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Continues to Pay Fibro-related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., continues to reimburse holders of
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

OneBeacon has assets, liabilities and capital related to non-
specialty business that it no longer writes, principally non-
specialty commercial lines and certain other run-off business,
including the vast majority of its asbestos and environmental
reserves

The Company states: "Our reserves, substantially all of which
relate to the Runoff Business and are included in liabilities held
for sale on the December 31, 2013 and 2012 consolidated balance
sheets, include provisions made for claims that assert damages
from A&E related exposures. Asbestos claims relate primarily to
injuries asserted by those who allegedly came in contact with
asbestos or products containing asbestos.

Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related
clean-up cost obligations, particularly as mandated by federal and
state environmental protection agencies. In addition to the
factors under "Reserves other than Asbestos and Environmental
Reserves" regarding the reserving process, we estimate our A&E
reserves based upon, among other factors, facts surrounding
reported cases and exposures to claims, such as policy limits and
deductibles, current law, past and projected claim activity and
past settlement values for similar claims, as well as analysis of
industry studies and events, such as recent settlements and
asbestos-related bankruptcies. The cost of administering A&E
claims, which is an important factor in estimating loss and LAE
reserves, tends to be higher than in the case of non-A&E claims
due to the higher legal costs typically associated with A&E
claims.

A large portion of our A&E losses resulted from the operations of
the Employers Group, an entity acquired by one of the legacy
companies in 1971. These operations, including business of
Employers Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Employers Liability
Assurance Corporation, provided primary and excess liability
insurance for commercial insureds, including Fortune 500-sized
accounts, some of whom subsequently experienced claims for A&E
losses. We stopped writing such coverage in 1984.

Our liabilities for A&E losses from business underwritten in the
recent past are substantially limited by the application of
exclusionary clauses in the policy language that eliminated
coverage for such claims. After 1987 for pollution and 1992 for
asbestos, most liability policies contained industry-standard
absolute exclusions of such claims. In earlier years, various
exclusions were also applied, but the wording of those exclusions
was less strict and subsequent court rulings have reduced their
effectiveness.

We also incurred A&E losses via our participation in industry
pools and associations. The most significant of these pools was
Excess Casualty Reinsurance Association (ECRA), which provided
excess liability reinsurance to U.S. insurers from 1950 until the
early 1980s. ECRA incurred significant liabilities for A&E, of
which we bear approximately a 4.6% share as of both December 31,
2013 and 2012, or $68.1 million and $66.9 million at December 31,
2013 and 2012, respectively, which is fully reflected in our loss
and LAE reserves.

More recently, since the 1990s, we have experienced an influx of
claims from commercial insureds, including many non-Fortune 500-
sized accounts written during the 1970s and 1980s, who are named
as defendants in asbestos lawsuits. As a number of large well-
known manufacturers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products
have gone into bankruptcy, plaintiffs have sought recoveries from
peripheral defendants, such as installers, transporters or sellers
of such products, or from owners of premises on which the
plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos allegedly occurred. At December
31, 2013, 547 policyholders had asbestos-related claims against
us. In 2013, 94 new insureds with such peripheral involvement
presented asbestos claims under prior policies we had written.

Historically, most asbestos claims have been asserted as product
liability claims. Recently, insureds who have exhausted the
available products liability limits of their insurance policies
have sought from insurers such as us payment for asbestos claims
under the premises and operations coverage of their liability
policies, which may not be subject to similar aggregate limits. We
expect this trend to continue. However, to date there have been
fewer of these premises and operations coverage claims than
product liability coverage claims. This may be due to a variety of
factors, including that it may be more difficult for underlying
plaintiffs to establish losses as stemming from premises and
operations exposures, which requires proof of the defendant's
negligence, rather than products liability under which strict
legal liability applies. Premises and operations claims may vary
significantly and policyholders may seek large amounts, although
such claims frequently settle for a fraction of the initial
alleged amount. Accordingly, there is a great deal of variation in
damages awarded for the actual injuries. As of December 31, 2013,
there were approximately 407 active claims by insureds against us
without product liability coverage asserting operations or
premises coverage, which may not be subject to aggregate limits
under the policies.

Immediately preceding the OneBeacon Acquisition, we purchased a
reinsurance contract with National Indemnity Company (NICO) under
which we are entitled to recover from NICO up to $2.5 billion in
the future for asbestos claims arising from business written by us
in 1992 and prior, environmental claims arising from business
written by us in 1987 and prior, and certain other exposures. We
refer to this reinsurance contract as the NICO Cover. Under the
terms of the NICO Cover, NICO receives the economic benefit of
reinsurance recoverables from certain of our third-party
reinsurers in existence at the time the NICO Cover was executed,
or Third-Party Recoverables. As a result, the Third-Party
Recoverables serve to protect the $2.5 billion limit of NICO
coverage for the benefit of us. Any amounts uncollectible from
third-party reinsurers due to dispute or the reinsurers' financial
inability to pay are covered by NICO under its agreement with us.
Third-Party Recoverables are typically for the amount of loss in
excess of a stated level each year. Of claim payments from 2000
through 2013, approximately 45.8% of A&E losses have been
recovered under the historical third-party reinsurance.

During 2011, we completed a study of our legacy A&E exposures.
Based on the results of the study, we increased the central
estimate of incurred losses ceded to NICO from $2.2 billion to
$2.3 billion, an increase of $121.9 million, net of underlying
reinsurance. Due to the NICO Cover, there was no impact to income
or equity from the change in the estimate. We review A&E activity
each quarter and compare that activity to what was assumed in the
most recently completed A&E study. Through December 31, 2013, that
activity has been in line with expectations, generally, so we have
not revised our estimate of ultimate payments.

We have ceded estimated incurred losses of approximately $2.3
billion to the NICO Cover at December 31, 2013. Since entering
into the NICO Cover, approximately 10% of the $2.3 billion of
utilized coverage relates to uncollectible Third-Party
Recoverables and settlements on Third-Party Recoverables through
December 31, 2013. Net losses paid totaled $1.6 billion as of
December 31, 2013. To the extent that actual experience differs
from our estimate of incurred A&E losses and Third-Party
Recoverables, future losses could exceed the $198.3 million of
protection remaining under the NICO Cover.

Our reserves for A&E losses, net of Third-Party Recoverables but
prior to NICO recoveries, were $0.6 billion at December 31, 2013.
An industry benchmark of reserve adequacy is the "survival ratio,"
computed as a company's reserves divided by its historical average
yearly loss payments. This ratio indicates approximately how many
more years of payments the reserves can support, assuming future
yearly payments are equal to historical levels. Our survival ratio
was 7.8 years at December 31, 2013. This was computed as the ratio
of A&E reserves, net of Third-Party Recoverables prior to the NICO
Cover of $0.6 billion plus the remaining unused portion of the
NICO Cover of $198.3 million, to the average A&E loss payments
over the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, net of Third-
Party Recoverables. Our survival ratio was 10.4 years at December
31, 2012. We believe that as a result of the NICO Cover and our
historical third-party reinsurance programs, we should not
experience material financial loss from A&E exposures under
current coverage interpretations and that our survival ratio is
consistent with industry survival ratios. However, the survival
ratio is a simplistic measure estimating the number of years it
would be before the current ending loss reserves for these claims
would be paid using recent annual average payments subject to
adjustments for unusual items. Many factors, such as aggressive
settlement procedures, mix of business and coverage provided, have
a significant effect on the amount of A&E reserves and payments
and the resultant survival ratio. Thus, caution should be
exercised in attempting to determine reserve adequacy for these
claims based simply on this survival ratio.

Our reserves for A&E losses at December 31, 2013 represent
management's best estimate of its ultimate liability based on
information currently available. However, significant
uncertainties, including but not limited to case law developments,
medical and clean-up cost increases and industry settlement
practices, limit our ability to accurately estimate ultimate
liability and we may be subject to A&E losses beyond currently
estimated amounts. In addition, we remain liable for risks
reinsured in the event that a reinsurer does not honor its
obligations under reinsurance contracts."

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. (OneBeacon), through its
subsidiaries, is a specialty property and casualty insurance
writer that offers a range of insurance products through
independent agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers
and managing general agencies. The Company's products relate to
professional liability, marine, entertainment, sports and leisure,
excess property, environmental, group accident, crop, programs,
public entities, technology, surety, and tuition refund. The
Company operates in two segments: Specialty Products, Specialty
Industries, and Investing, Financing and Corporate. In February
2012, the Company sold its AutoOne Insurance business (AutoOne) to
Interboro Holdings, Inc. (Interboro). In January 2013, the Company
sold Essentia Insurance Company to Markel Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Unit Continues to Defend Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
One of Forum Energy Technologies, Inc.'s subsidiaries 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: "One of our subsidiaries has been named as one
of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for
alleged exposure to asbestos. These lawsuits are typically filed
on behalf of plaintiffs who allege exposure to some asbestos,
against numerous defendants, often 40 or more, who may have
manufactured or distributed products containing asbestos. The
injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from
mesothelioma to other cancers to asbestosis. The earliest claims
against our subsidiary were filed in New Jersey in 1998, and our
subsidiary currently has active cases in Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, and Illinois. These complaints do not typically include
requests for a specific amount of damages. The trademark for the
product line with asbestos exposure was acquired in 1985. Our
subsidiary has been successful in obtaining dismissals in many
lawsuits where the exposure is alleged to have occurred prior to
our acquisition of the trademark. The law in some states does not
find purchasers of product lines to have tort liability for
incidents occurring prior to the acquisition date unless they
assumed the responsibility or in certain other circumstances. The
law in certain other states on so called "successor liability" may
be different or ambiguous in this regard. Most claimants alleging
illnesses due to asbestos sue on the basis of exposure prior to
1985, as by that date the hazards of asbestos exposure were well
known and asbestos had begun to fall into disuse in industrial
settings. To date, asbestos claims have not had a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flow, as our annual out-of-pocket costs over
the last five years has been less than $200,000. There are
typically fewer than 100 cases filed against our subsidiary each
year, and a similar number of cases are dismissed, settled or
otherwise disposed of each year. We currently have fewer than 200
lawsuits pending against this subsidiary. Our subsidiary has over
$17 million in face amount of per occurrence and over $23 million
of aggregate primary insurance coverage; a portion of the coverage
has been eroded by payments made by insurers. In addition, our
subsidiary has over $950 million in face amount of excess coverage
applicable to the claims. There can be no guarantee that all of
this can be collected due to policy terms and conditions and
insurer insolvencies in the past or in the future. In January
2011, we entered into an agreement with seven of our primary
insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of the costs of
handling and settling each asbestos claim against the affected
subsidiary. After an initial period, and under certain
circumstances, our subsidiary and the subscribing insurers may
withdraw from this agreement."

Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. is an oilfield products company,
serving the subsea, drilling, completion, production and
infrastructure sectors of the oil and natural gas industry. The
Company designs and manufactures products, and engage in
aftermarket services, parts supply and related services that
complement its product offering. It operates in two segments:
Drilling and Subsea Segment and Production and Infrastructure
Segment. In December 2012, the Company acquired Merrimac
Manufacturing, Inc. (Merrimac). In May 2013, the Company acquired
Blohm + Voss Oil Tools from STAR Capital Partners Limited. In July
2013, Forum Energy Technologies Inc acquired Moffat 2000 Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Had $25.2-Mil A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc., had $25.2 million net asbestos
and environmental reserves, 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 general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due
to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the
absolute pollution endorsement in the mid-1980s; and (ii)
underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners
policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured
exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing
commercial risks, and homeowners policies. The emergence of these
claims is slow and highly unpredictable.

"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2013, asbestos claims constituted 30%
of our $25.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
compared to 28% of our $27.8 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2012.

"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking
underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in
policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or
maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill
exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively
consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of
business related to claims for groundwater contamination from
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In
2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey
homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking
underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time,
existing insureds were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back
oil tank liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all new
homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible
for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific
eligibility criteria.

Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-
claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often
improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of
coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.

Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Normal historically based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims
because past loss history is not indicative of future potential
loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can
be applied, such models can produce significantly different
results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not
calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically,
our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly
lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of
our competitors in the commercial lines industry. This is due to
the nature of the risks we insured, and the fact that we are the
primary insurance carrier on the majority of these exposures,
which provides more certainty in our reserve position compared to
others in the insurance marketplace."

Selective Insurance Group, Inc., is a holding company for
insurance subsidiaries, which offers property and casualty
insurance products and services. It operates in two segments:
Insurance Operations, which sells property and casualty insurance
products and services, and Investments, which invests the premiums
collected by the Insurance Operations. It derives its income in
three ways: underwriting income from Insurance Operations, net
investment income from Investments, and net realized gains and
losses on investment securities from the Investments segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torchmark Property Sale Eliminated Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
The sale of real estate by a Torchmark Corporation subsidiary
eliminated substantially all of the Company's asbestos-related
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.

During 2013, Liberty National Life Insurance Company, a Torchmark
subsidiary, sold real estate for a loss of $265,000,000 after a
previous write-down for other-than-temporary impairment of $2.7
billion earlier in the year. The sale of this property eliminated
substantially all asbestos-related liability for Torchmark.

Torchmark Corporation is an insurance holding company. The Company
is financial services holding company whose affiliate Companies
market life insurance and supplemental health insurance to middle-
income Americans. The Company operates in life insurance, health
insurance, and annuities segment. The Company's primary
subsidiaries are American Income Life Insurance Company (American
Income), Liberty National Life Insurance Company (Liberty), Globe
Life And Accident Insurance Company (Globe), United American
Insurance Company (United American), and Family Heritage Life
Insurance Company of America (Family Heritage).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: White Mountains Unit Had 2,023 Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd., disclosed that its Sirius
Group segment had 2,023 open claim files for 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.

Sirius Group utilizes specialized claims handling processes on A&E
exposures. The issues presented by these types of claims require
expertise and an awareness of the various trends and developments
in relevant jurisdictions. Generally, Sirius Group sets up claim
files for each reported claim by each cedent for each individual
insured. In many instances, a single claim notification from a
cedent could involve several years and layers of coverage
resulting in a file being set up for each involvement.
Precautionary claim notices are submitted by the ceding companies
in order to preserve their right to pursue coverage under the
reinsurance contract. Such notices do not contain an incurred loss
amount. Accordingly, an open claim file is not established. As of
December 31, 2013, Sirius Group had 2,023 open claim files for
asbestos and 399 open claim files for environmental exposures.

Sirius Group's A&E exposure is primarily from reinsurance
contracts written between 1974 through 1985 by acquired companies,
mainly MONY Reinsurance Company and Christiania General Insurance
Company. The exposures are mostly higher layer excess of loss
treaty and facultative coverages with relatively low limits
exposed for each claim. In 2013 and 2012, Sirius Group increased
its net A&E exposure through incoming runoff portfolios acquired
by White Mountains Solutions. These acquisitions added $13 million
in net asbestos reserves and $1 million in net environmental
reserves in 2013, and $11 million in net asbestos reserves and $1
million in net environmental reserves in 2012. The acquisition of
companies having modest portfolios of A&E exposure has been
typical of several prior White Mountains Solutions transactions
and is likely to be an element of at least some future
acquisitions. However, the acquisition of new A&E liabilities is
undertaken only after careful due diligence and utilizing
conservative reserving assumptions in relation to industry
benchmarks. In the case of the portfolios acquired during 2013 and
2012, the exposures arise almost entirely from old assumed
reinsurance contracts having small limits of liability.

Sirius Group recorded $12 million and $46 million of asbestos-
related incurred losses and LAE on its already existing asbestos
reserves in 2013 and 2012. The 2013 incurred losses were primarily
the result of management's monitoring of a variety of metrics
including actual paid and reported claims activity as compared to
the most recent in-depth analysis performed in 2012, net paid and
reported survival ratios, peer comparisons, and industry
benchmarks. In 2012, the increase in net asbestos losses included
$14 million in response to Sirius Group's quarterly monitoring of
newly reported claims and $33 million as a result of an in-depth
analysis of all treaty and facultative contracts likely to have
asbestos exposure which examined total expected asbestos losses
and LAE from a variety of information sources, including previous
asbestos studies, reported client data and external benchmarking
scenarios.

Sirius Group recorded an increase of $1 million and a decrease of
$(1) million of environmental losses in 2013 and 2012 on its
already existing reserves.

Sirius Group's net reserves for A&E losses were $194 million and
$189 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Sirius
Group's A&E three-year net paid survival ratio was approximately
8.0 years and 9.0 years at December 31, 2013 and 2012 which are
consistent with industry survival ratios.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company's gross loss and
LAE payments for asbestos exposure was $25.9 million and; for
environmental exposure was $1.9 million.

White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. conducts its businesses
through its property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
subsidiaries and affiliates. It operates in OneBeacon, Sirius
Group, HG Global/BAM and Other Operations. The OneBeacon segment
consists of OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., a company that owns a
family of the United States-based property and casualty insurance
companies. The Sirius Group segment consists of Sirius
International Insurance Group, Ltd. and its subsidiaries. The HG
Global/BAM segment consists of White Mountains' investment in HG
Global Ltd. (HG Global) and the results of Build America Mutual
Assurance Company (BAM). The Company's Other Operations segment
consists of the Company and its holding companies. In February
2014, White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd acquired certain assets
and liabilities of Star & Shield Holdings LLC, including Star &
Shield Risk Management LLC, by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company.


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

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $2,700,000 (excluding
costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a
defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively
pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed
to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against
the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all
defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against
the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims
up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion
of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that
is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted
that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.
The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for
$15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice. As of December 31, 2013, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the
term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue
its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the
policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage
issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless,
liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and
coverage available to the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be
exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims
against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,
especially with respect to claims that are currently not being
actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe
that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be
held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the
subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature
of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of
such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential
availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary
level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance
and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held
responsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of the
parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not
probable that the Company will incur any material losses. The
Company has been successful to date having claims naming it
dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company may be in
this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not possible
to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. In July 2012, the Company acquired NP Coil Dexter
Industries S.r.l.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had $1.7-Bil. Net Fibro Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., reported $1.7 billion net
asbestos reserves, 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 continues to receive asbestos and environmental
claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries
asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products
containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to
pollution and related clean-up costs.

The Company wrote several different categories of insurance
contracts that may cover asbestos and environmental claims. First,
the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of
coverage in an insured's liability program. Second, the Company
wrote excess policies providing higher layers of coverage for
losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the
Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks
assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess and reinsurance
coverages. Fourth, subsidiaries of the Company participated in the
London Market, writing both direct insurance and assumed
reinsurance business.

Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly
asbestos claims. The degree of variability of reserve estimates
for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more
traditional exposures.

In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and
inconsistent emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time,
insurers, including the Company, have experienced significant
changes in the rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the
claims experience of particular insureds, and the value of claims,
making predictions of future exposure from past experience
uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought to use
bankruptcy proceedings, including "pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to
accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers. In addition,
some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims for
coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not apply.
Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other carriers and
unanticipated developments pertaining to the Company's ability to
recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims.
Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in
the near future.

In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding
theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major
litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and
scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to
the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured.

The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including
those related to asbestos and environmental claims, is much longer
than for direct claims. In many instances, it takes months or
years to determine that the policyholder's own obligations have
been met and how the reinsurance in question may apply to such
claims. The delay in reporting reinsurance claims and exposures
adds to the uncertainty of estimating the related reserves.

It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and
legislative environment and their effect on the future development
of asbestos and environmental claims.

The Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it
employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in
estimating reserves for certain of its asbestos and environmental
exposures. For this reason, the Company principally relies on
exposure-based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these
claims and regularly evaluates new account information in
assessing its potential asbestos and environmental exposures. The
Company supplements this exposure-based analysis with evaluations
of the Company's historical direct net loss and expense paid and
reported experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported
experience by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging
trends, fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate
paid and reported activity.

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company reported $1.7
billion and $1.8 billion of net asbestos reserves and $276 and
$297 of net environmental reserves, respectively. The Company
believes that its current asbestos and environmental reserves are
appropriate. However, analyses of future developments could cause
The Hartford to change its estimates and ranges of its asbestos
and environmental reserves, and the effect of these changes could
be material to the Company's consolidated operating results and
liquidity.

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., formerly The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., is an insurance and financial
services company. The Company is a provider of investment products
and life, property, and casualty insurance to both individual and
business customers in the United States of America. The Company
maintains a retail mutual fund operation, whereby the Company,
through wholly owned subsidiaries, provides investment management
and administrative services to The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc. and
The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc. (collectively, mutual funds),
consisting of 57 mutual funds, as of December 31, 2011. The
Company operates in four segments: Commercial Markets, Consumer
Markets, Wealth Management and Runoff Operations. In October 2011,
the Company sold Trumbull Services, LLC to ExlService Holdings,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 98 Fibro Suits as of Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation disclosed that together with its subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2013, it has a total of 98 pending 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 states: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois
have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers.
Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.  The total number of defendants named in each case
varies, with the average number of parties being 82 as of December
31, 2013. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded
at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.

In connection with the divestiture of New AER to IPH, certain
agreements related to former Ameren Illinois energy centers were
amended to provide that Ameren Illinois will continue to retain
asbestos exposure-related liabilities for claims arising or
existing from activities prior to its transfer of the ownership of
the former Ameren Illinois energy centers to New AER. IPH will be
responsible for any asbestos-related claims arising from
activities that occur after the effective date of the divestiture.
No claims arose solely from activities in the period after the
transfer of the energy centers from Ameren Illinois to AER, but
before IPH took ownership of New AER.

As of December 31, 2013, the pending asbestos-related lawsuits
filed against Ameren was 1, Ameren Missouri were 47, and Ameren
Illinois were 50.

At December 31, 2013, Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois
had liabilities of $11 million, $5 million, and $6 million,
respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their
obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At December 31, 2013, the
trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The
rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical
service territory."

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $382.4-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $382.4
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.

The Company states: "With respect to asbestos only, at
December 31, 2013, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of
$382.4 million, or 95.0%, of total A&E reserves, of which $306.8
million was for assumed business and $75.6 million was for direct
business.

Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimate
liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss
payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant
amount.

Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 8.0 years at December 31,
2013. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

Everest Re Group, Ltd. through its subsidiaries, is principally
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies. The Company operates in four segments: U.S.
Reinsurance, International, Bermuda and Insurance. The Company
underwrites insurance principally through general agent
relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The Company's
principal operating subsidiaries include Bermuda Re, Everest
International Reinsurance, Ltd., Ireland Re, Everest Re, Everest
Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company,
Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security Insurance
Company, Mt. McKinley and Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Fibro Suit Remains Pending Against Le@P
------------------------------------------------------------
One legal proceeding arising out of asbestos-related material
aboard certain maritime vessels allegedly owned or operated by
subsidiaries of Le@P Technology, Inc., remains pending, 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.

One or more subsidiaries of the Company (including Sealcraft
Operators, Inc., which was acquired by virtue of a merger with a
predecessor entity of the Company) are involved in legal
proceedings originally brought by seven separate plaintiffs in the
early 1990s alleging damages arising out of asbestos-related
material aboard certain maritime vessels allegedly owned or
operated by such subsidiaries. As previously reported, in the
interests of efficiency and avoiding potentially extensive and
expensive litigation proceedings, the Company has been and is
pursuing settlements with respect to all such known proceedings.
Of the seven legal proceedings, two were dismissed in early 2013,
four were settled and dismissed with prejudice in September 2013
and one remains outstanding (with respect to which a settlement is
being pursued and is anticipated). As of December 31, 2013 (and
for the twelve months then ended), the Company expended $32,000 in
settlement payments and approximately $19,700 in legal fees and
expenses related to these legal proceedings and settlements. In
view of the inherent uncertainty of predicting the outcome of
matters such as these until fully and finally resolved, the
Company's management is unable to predict what the eventual
outcome and related costs and expenses of the remaining legal
proceeding will be. However, based on current information and
after consultation with the Company's special litigation counsel,
the Company's management believes that any remaining payments and
legal fees and costs associated with this proceeding will be in
line with its previously reported estimate (and budgeted amount)
of $5,000.

Le@P Technology, Inc. (Le@P) owns the property in Broward County,
Florida (the Real Property). As of December 31, 2011, the Company
had no revenue-producing activities. Parkson Property LLC
(Parkson), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, owns the Real
Property. The Real Property is zoned light industrial and consists
of approximately one and one-third acres. The Company leased the
Real Property to an unrelated third party tenant. The Company's
previous tenant lease on the Real Property has expired.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Unit Had 53,000 Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
A Crown Holdings, Inc., subsidiary had approximately 53,000
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. In 1963, Crown
Cork acquired a subsidiary that had two operating businesses, one
of which is alleged to have manufactured asbestos-containing
insulation products. Crown Cork believes that the business ceased
manufacturing such products in 1963.

The Company recorded pre-tax charges of $32 million, $35 million
and $28 million to increase its accrual for asbestos-related
liabilities in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of
December 31, 2013, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $260 million,
including $221 million for unasserted claims. Crown Cork's accrual
includes estimated probable costs for claims through the year
2023. Crown Cork's accrual excludes potential costs for claims
beyond 2023 because the Company believes that the key assumptions
underlying its accrual are subject to greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. Assumptions underlying the accrual
include that claims for exposure to asbestos that occurred after
the sale of the subsidiary's insulation business in 1964 would not
be entitled to settlement payouts and that state statutes
described under Note K to the Company's audited consolidated
financial statements included in this Annual Report, including
Texas and Pennsylvania statutes, are expected to have a highly
favorable impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend
against asbestos-related claims in those states and other states
where Pennsylvania law may apply.

Crown Cork had approximately 53,000 asbestos-related claims
outstanding at December 31, 2013. Of these claims, approximately
16,000 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to
asbestos after 1964 and approximately 37,000 relate to claimants
alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of
which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 2,000 were filed
in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have
enacted asbestos legislation and 16,000 were filed in other
states. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2013 also exclude
approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time,
the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these
cases will pursue further action. The exclusion of these inactive
claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual
as the claims were filed in states where the Company's liability
is limited by statute. The Company devotes significant time and
expense to defend against these various claims, complaints and
proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the expenses or
distractions from operating the Company's businesses arising from
these defenses will not increase materially.

During the year ended December 31, 2013, Crown Cork received
approximately 4,000 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately
2,000 claims, and had approximately 53,000 claims outstanding at
the end of the period.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme
Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

Crown Cork made cash payments of $28 million in each of the years
2013, 2012 and 2011 for asbestos-related claims including
settlement payments and legal fees. These payments have reduced
and any such future payments will reduce the cash flow available
to Crown Cork for its business operations and debt payments.

Asbestos-related payments including defense costs may be
significantly higher than those estimated by Crown Cork because
the outcome of this type of litigation (and, therefore, Crown
Cork's reserve) is subject to a number of assumptions and
uncertainties, such as the number or size of asbestos-related
claims or settlements, the number of financially viable
responsible parties, the extent to which state statutes relating
to asbestos liability are upheld and/or applied by the courts,
Crown Cork's ability to obtain resolution without payment of
asbestos-related claims by persons alleging first exposure to
asbestos after 1964, and the potential impact of any pending or
future asbestos-related legislation. Accordingly, Crown Cork may
be required to make payments for claims substantially in excess of
its accrual, which could reduce the Company's cash flow and impair
its ability to satisfy its obligations. As a result of the
uncertainties regarding its asbestos-related liabilities and its
reduced cash flow, the ability of the Company to raise new money
in the capital markets is more difficult and more costly, and the
Company may not be able to access the capital markets in the
future.

The Company's potential liability for asbestos cases is highly
uncertain due to the difficulty of forecasting many factors,
including the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of
claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, the nature of
future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease,
whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or
during 1964 and the alleged link to Crown Cork), the terms of
settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities,
bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in
additional claims and higher settlement demands for non-bankrupt
defendants), potential liabilities for claims filed after the
Company's ten-year projection period and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

At the end of each quarter, the Company considers whether there
have been any material developments that would cause it to update
its asbestos accrual calculations. Absent any significant
developments in the asbestos litigation environment in general or
with respect to the Company specifically, the Company updates its
accrual calculations in the fourth quarter of each year. The
Company's asbestos accrual is an estimate of the amounts expected
to be paid over the next ten years including outstanding claims,
projected future claims and legal costs. Outstanding claims used
in the accrual calculation are adjusted for factors such as claims
filed in those states where the Company's liability is limited by
statute, claims alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964
which are assumed to have no value and claims which are projected
will never be paid which are assumed to have a reduced or nominal
value based on the length of time outstanding. Projected future
claims are calculated based on actual data for the most recent
five years and are adjusted to account for the expectation that a
percentage of these claims will never be paid. Outstanding and
projected claims are multiplied by the average settlement cost of
those claims for the most recent five years.

The five year average settlement cost per claim was $12,100,
$10,600 and $8,200 for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The
increase in average settlement cost per claim is primarily
explained as follows. Crown Cork's settlement pool continues to
include a higher percentage of claims alleging serious disease
(primarily mesothelioma and other malignancies) which are settled
for higher amounts. In addition, claims alleging serious disease
have made up a higher percentage of claims filed and therefore a
higher percentage of claims projected into the future. For
example, of the projected claims related to claimants alleging
first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and filed in
states that have not enacted asbestos legislation, 56%, 54% and
45% in 2013, 2012 and 2011 respectively, relate to claims alleging
serious diseases.

Because the Company's asbestos liability is an estimate of the
amounts expected to be paid over the next ten years, the Company
expects to record a charge each year to account for projected
claims in the new tenth year. As claims are not submitted or
settled evenly throughout the year, it is difficult to predict at
any time during the year whether the number of claims or average
settlement cost over the five year period ending December 31 of
such year will increase compared to the prior five year period.

In 2013, the Company recorded a charge of $32 million primarily
due to the impact of including an additional year of settlement
and legal costs in the Company's projection period and the impact
of valuing higher levels of outstanding and projected claims,
which include a higher percentage of claims alleging serious
disease, at higher average settlement amounts.

If the recent trend of settling a higher percentage of claims
alleging serious disease (primarily mesothelioma and other
malignancies) which are settled for higher amounts continues,
average settlement costs per claim are likely to increase and, if
not offset by a reduction in overall claims and settlements, the
Company may record additional charges in the future. A 10% change
in either the average cost per claim or the number of projected
claims would increase or decrease the estimated liability at
December 31, 2013, by $26 million for the following ten-year
period. A 10% increase in these two factors at the same time would
increase the estimated liability at December 31, 2013 by $55
million for the following ten-year period. A 10% decrease in these
two factors at the same time would decrease the estimated
liability at December 31, 2013 by $49 million for the following
ten-year period.

Crown Holdings, Inc. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its business is
organized within three divisions: Americas, Europe and Asia
Pacific. Its segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. Its segments within the European
Division are European Beverage and European Food. Americas
Beverage includes beverage can operations in the United States,
Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Mexico. North America Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in the United States
and Canada. European Beverage includes beverage can operations in
Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. European Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in Europe and Africa.
Its Asia Pacific Division consists of beverage and non-beverage
can operations, primarily food cans and specialty packaging. As of
December 31, 2012, it acquired Superior Multi-Packaging Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Estimates $1.7MM ARO at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s estimated asset retirement
obligations relating primarily to estimated asbestos removal costs
was $1.7 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We record accruals for estimated retirement
obligations as required by current accounting guidance. The amount
of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated
asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life of
properties that were built before 1984. As of December 31, 2013
and December 31, 2012, the amount included in accounts payable and
other accrued liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets was
approximately $1.7 million and $1.7 million, respectively."

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company owns, acquires, develops, redevelops and
manages technology-related real estate. The Company's operates
through Digital Realty Trust, L.P. and owns a 97.8% common general
partnership interest. Digital Realty Trust, L.P. holds
substantially all the assets of the Company and holds the
ownership interests in the Company's joint ventures. As of
December 31, 2012, it owned 117 properties, excluding three
properties held as investments in unconsolidated joint ventures,
of which 92 are located throughout North America, 21 are located
in Europe and one is located in Asia. In March 2013, it completed
the acquisition of 371 Gough Road in Markham, Ontario (Canada), a
120,000 square foot data center development property. In September
2013, the Company announced the completion of the acquisition of a
15,000 square meter site in Osaka.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Companies Had 27 PI Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 27 asbestos-related lawsuits against Rowan Companies
plc, 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 from time to time a party to various
lawsuits filed by current or former employees that are incidental
to our operations in which the claimants seek unspecified amounts
of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on our drilling
rigs. At December 31, 2013, there were approximately 27 asbestos
related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These
lawsuits have been filed in the state courts of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits; however, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of
these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Rowan Companies plc, formerly Rowan Companies, Inc., is a provider
of international and domestic offshore contract drilling services.
The Company provides offshore contract drilling services utilizing
a fleet of 31 self-elevating mobile offshore drilling platforms
(jack-up rigs). Its primary focus is on jack-up rigs, which its
customers uses for exploratory and development drilling and, in
certain areas, well workover operations. In addition, it had three
deepwater drillships, as of December 31, 2011, which was under
construction. It conducts offshore drilling operations in various
markets throughout the world, and as of February 27, 2012, it had
11 rigs in the Middle East, 10 in the United Sates Gulf of Mexico,
six in the North Sea, two in Trinidad, and one each in Malaysia
and Vietnam. On September 1, 2011, it completed the sale of its
land drilling services business. On June 22, 2011, it completed
the sale of its wholly owned manufacturing subsidiary, LeTourneau
Technologies, Inc.


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

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company. As of December 31, 2013, General Cable was a defendant in
approximately 29,133 cases brought in Federal District Courts
throughout the United States. In calendar years 2013, 2012 and
2011, 133, 113, and 115 asbestos cases, respectively, were brought
against the Company. In the last 20 years, General Cable has had
no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable
was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product
identification. As of December 31, 2013, 21,933 asbestos cases
have been dismissed. In calendar years 2013, 2012 and 2011, 65
cases, 66 cases and 61 cases, respectively, were dismissed. With
regards to the approximately 29,133 remaining pending cases,
General Cable is aggressively defending these cases based upon
either lack of product identification as to General Cable
manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure
to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product.

For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") as of
December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in
361 cases. In 219 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages
in excess of some dollar amount (about $358 thousand per
plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar
amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 141 other cases
pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL),
plaintiffs seek approximately $438 million in damages from as many
as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages
related to General Cable in the amount of $10 million. In
addition, in relation to these 361 cases, there are claims of $319
million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However,
many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant
injuries. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, General Cable had
accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.2 million and had
recorded approximately $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for
these lawsuits, at each year end. The net amount of $4.7 million
as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, at each year end, represents the
Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of current
and future asbestos-related claims.

The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is
relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement
release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of December 31, 2013,
aggregate settlement costs were $8.7 million. In calendar years
2013, 2012 and 2011, the settlement costs totaled $0.3 million,
$0.6 million and $0.9 million, respectively. As of December 31,
2013, aggregate costs of administering and litigating the asbestos
claims were $24.4 million. In calendar years 2013, 2012 and 2011,
the costs of administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled
$1.7 million, $1.7 million and $2.2 million, respectively.

In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement
with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for
the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of
the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of
the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of
the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible
for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a
result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the
Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to
these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be
financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter
into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be
required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in
connection with these cases.

General Cable Corporation is a engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). On December 3, 2012, the Company completed
the acquisition of the Chinese business of Alcan Cable. On
November 2, 2012, the Company acquired Prestolite Wire, LLC. On
October 1, 2012, the Company acquired 60% of Productora de Cables
Procables S.A.S. On September 4, 2012, the Company completed the
acquisition of the North American business of Alcan Cable North
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had $4.6-Mil. in A&E Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc., had $4.6 million in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves, 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, "Included in the other liability and assumed
reinsurance lines of business are reserves for asbestos and other
environmental losses and loss settlement expenses. At December 31,
2013 and 2012, we had $4.6 million and $1.7 million, respectively,
in direct and assumed asbestos and environmental loss reserves. In
addition, we had ceded asbestos and environmental loss reserves of
$3.5 million and $0.4 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012,
respectively. The estimation of loss reserves for environmental
claims and claims related to long-term exposure to asbestos and
other substances is one of the most difficult aspects of
establishing reserves, especially given the inherent uncertainties
surrounding such claims. Although we record our best estimate of
loss and loss settlement expense reserves, the ultimate amounts
paid upon settlement of such claims may be more or less than the
amount of the reserves, because of the significant uncertainties
involved and the likelihood that these uncertainties will not be
resolved for many years.

United Fire Group, Inc., formerly United Fire & Casualty Company,
is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance and selling annuities. The Company
operates in two segments: property and casualty insurance, and
life insurance. The Company's property and casualty insurance
segment consists of commercial lines insurance, including surety
bonds, personal lines insurance and assumed insurance. Its life
insurance segment consists of deferred and immediate annuities,
universal life insurance products and traditional life insurance
products. Its life insurance segment consists solely of the
operations of United Life Insurance Company. On February 1, 2012,
the Company completed a holding company reorganization of United
Fire Group, Inc., United Fire & Casualty Company and UFC MergeCo,
Inc. On March 28, 2011, the Company acquired Mercer Insurance
Group, Inc. (Mercer Insurance Group).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Financial Had $11.1MM A&E Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation disclosed that its asbestos
reserves are $1.4 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.

Asbestos reserves are $1.4 million, and environmental reserves are
$9.7 million, for a total of $11.1 million, or 1.2% of net losses
and loss expenses payable. Asbestos reserves remained the same and
environmental reserves increased $2.6 million from 2012.

State Auto Financial Corporation (State Auto Financial) is a
property and casualty insurance holding company. The Company is
engaged in writing both personal and business lines of insurance.
State Auto Financial's subsidiaries include State Auto P&C,
Milbank, Farmers and SA Ohio each of which is a property and
casualty insurance company, and Stateco, which provides investment
management services to affiliated insurance companies. State Auto
Financial's parent company is State Auto Mutual, a mutual property
and casualty insurance company. It owns approximately 63% of State
Auto Financial. State Auto Mutual Mutual's other subsidiaries and
affiliates include SA Florida, SA Wisconsin, Meridian Security,
Meridian Citizens Mutual, Beacon National, Patrons Mutual,
Litchfield and the Rockhill Insurers, each of which is a property
and casualty insurance company. It operates in three business
segments: personal insurance, business insurance (the insurance
segments), and investment operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Had 2,950 Cases Pending at Jan. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. is involved in approximately 2,950 asbestos and
silica-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 2,950 asbestos and silica-
related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our
subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings
relating to environmental matters. In addition, as a normal part
of operations, our subsidiaries undertake contractual obligations,
warranties and guarantees in connection with the sale of products
or services. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty and favorable or unfavorable resolutions
may affect our results of operations on a quarter-to-quarter
basis, we believe that the outcome of such legal and other matters
will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity."

Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company's equipment is used in mining
regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil
sands, and other minerals. The Company's underground mining
machinery segment (Joy Mining Machinery) is a manufacturer of
underground mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
bedded minerals and offers service locations near mining regions
worldwide. The Company's surface mining equipment segment (P&H
Mining Equipment) is a producer of surface mining equipment for
the extraction of ores and minerals and provides operational
support for many types of equipment used in surface mining. During
the fiscal year ended October 28, 2011, the Company completed the
acquisition of LeTourneau. On December 30, 2011, it acquired
approximately 41.1% of Int'l Mining Machinery Holdings Limited's
common stock to 69.2%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 PI Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 15 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against Parker
Drilling Company, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At December 31, 2013, there were approximately 15 of these
lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits
have been filed in the United States in the State of Mississippi.

Our subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related lawsuits intend
to defend themselves vigorously and, based on the information
available to us at this time, we do not expect the outcome to have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows. However, we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at
December 31, 2013."

Parker Drilling Company (Parker) is a provider of contract
drilling and drilling-related services. The Company operates in
six segments: Rental Tools, U.S. Barge Drilling, U.S. Drilling,
International Drilling, Technical Services and Construction
Contract. During year ended December 31, 2012, the Company
operated in 12 countries. The Company has operated in over 50
foreign countries and the United States. The Company's
international drilling business includes operations related to
Parker-owned and operated rigs, as well as customer-owned rigs.
The Company's U.S. Drilling segment primarily consists of two new-
design Arctic Alaska Drilling Unit (AADU) land rigs. The Company's
construction contract segment includes only the BP-owned Liberty
extended-reach drilling rig construction project. In April 2013,
the Company announced the acquisition of International Tubular
Services Limited and certain affiliates (ITS), subsidiaries of ITS
Tubular Services (Holdings) Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had $53MM in Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, had $53 million recorded in liabilities
subject to compromise related to contractual indemnity associated
with future asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and
Exelon Generation Company LLC for 50% of specific asbestos claims
pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of
insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for
liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related
claims as specified in a supplemental agreement. The estimated
liability is based on studies that estimate future losses based on
claims experience and other available information. In calculating
future losses, various assumptions were made, including, but not
limited to, the settlement of future claims under the supplemental
agreement, the distribution of exposure sites and that the filing
date of asbestos claims will not be after 2044. At December 31,
2013, Midwest Generation had $53 million recorded in liabilities
subject to compromise related to this contractual indemnity.

Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in
the Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating
capacity of almost 5,480 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired
power plants in Illinois (5,172 MW); it also oversees the
operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which
have 305 MW of capacity. Affiliate Edison Mission Marketing and
Trading acts as a conduit for Midwest Generation's wholesale
energy activities. Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison
International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co. In 2010
regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection accounted
for 79% of the company's revenues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,234 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P., had 1,234 asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

Steel Partners has an ownership interest of approximately 84.9% as
of Dec. 31, 2013, in BNS Liquidating Trust, previously BNS
Holdings, Inc.  A subsidiary of BNS has been named as a defendant
in 1,234 and 1,160 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as
of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The claims were filed
over a period beginning 1994 through September 30, 2013. In many
cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the
claims filed, 1,023 and 926 were dismissed, settled or granted
summary judgment and closed as of December 31, 2013 and 2012,
respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was
less than $3. There remained 211 and 234 pending asbestos claims
as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. There can be no
assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs
of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the
experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,082 and $2,282 at December
31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, in estimated remaining self
insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of
coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the
insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies
issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related
to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled
claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in
receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or
settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims have
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these
defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that
the number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims; and, that BNS Sub will not need to
increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements.

BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its
insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals
as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the
ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims
are revised. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, BNS
Sub has accrued $1,403 and $1,020 relating to the open and active
claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these
claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance
carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings
by BNS Sub. However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will
not need to take additional charges in connection with the
defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that
the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date relating to existing claims. These claims are now being
managed by the Liquidating Trust formed by BNS.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses through
consolidated subsidiaries, associated companies and other
interests. The Company owns and operates businesses and has
interests in companies in various industries, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, banking,
insurance, food products and services, oilfield services, sports,
training, education, and the entertainment and lifestyle
industries. The Company operates in three segments: Diversified
Industrial, Financial Services and Other. The Company's
subsidiary, SPH Services, Inc., through its subsidiary, SP
Corporate Services LLC (SP Corporate), provides certain executive
and corporate management services to it and some of its companies.
On July 5, 2011, its ownership interest in DGT Holdings Corp.
increased to 51.1%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance's A&E Reserves Total $9.6-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc.'s reserves for asbestos and environmental
related claims for direct insurance and assumed reinsurance
business totaled $9.6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related
claims associated with the insurance business written by the
parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business
assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance subsidiary. These
exposures are not considered to be significant. Asbestos and
environmental losses paid by the Company have averaged $1,770,660
per year over the past five years. Reserves for asbestos and
environmental related claims for direct insurance and assumed
reinsurance business totaled $9,642,785 and $9,432,926 ($8,950,485
and $8,777,876 net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2013 and 2012,
respectively.

At present, the pool participants are defending approximately
1,717 asbestos bodily injury lawsuits, some of which involve
multiple plaintiffs. Five former policyholders and one current
policyholder dominate the pool participants' asbestos claims. Most
of the lawsuits are subject to express reservation of rights based
upon the lack of an injury within the applicable policy periods,
because many asbestos lawsuits do not specifically allege dates of
asbestos exposure or dates of injury. The pool participants are
defending several hundred plaintiff lawsuits (primarily multi-
plaintiff lawsuits) filed against three former policyholders
related to exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos.
These claims are based upon nonspecific asbestos exposure and
nonspecific injuries. As a result, management did not establish a
significant amount of case loss reserves for these claims. As of
December 31, 2013, approximately 2,000 of the claims remain open.
The pool participants defended another former policyholder that
was a named defendant in approximately 33,000 claims nationwide.
The last of these claims were settled during 2012 for
approximately $690,000 (the Company's share).

Historically, actual losses paid for asbestos-related claims has
been minimal due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify an
exposure to any asbestos-containing products associated with the
pool participants' current and former policyholders. However, in
recent years paid losses and settlement expenses have increased
significantly as a result of claims attributed to two former
policyholders. At December 31, 2013, nine claims associated with
one of these policyholders remain open, though exposure on these
claims is not expected to be material. The other former
policyholder, a furnace manufacturer, had multiple claims settle
for a total of approximately $2,176,000 (the Company's share)
during the period 2009 through 2013. The asbestos exposure
associated with this former policyholder has increased in recent
years, and this trend may possibly continue into the future with
increased per plaintiff settlements. Approximately 646 asbestos
exposure claims associated with this former policyholder remain
open.

The Company continues to run-off ultimate asbestos and
environmental reserves established from an outside consultant's
ground-up study completed a number of years ago. The direct IBNR
and bulk settlement expense reserves associated with asbestos has
been increased in each of the most recent six years in response to
new information. In particular, bulk settlement expense reserves
have been increased to cover the costs associated with the
retention of a national coordinating counsel to address the multi-
state litigation issues of the Company's largest asbestos
defendant. Additionally, in 2012 the Company jointly settled a
long-term asbestos case representing the Company's share of 20
years' worth of defense costs. Increased settlement expense
payments have been the main driver of the reserve increases over
the past several years.

Estimating loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims is very difficult due to the many
uncertainties surrounding these types of claims. These
uncertainties exist because the assignment of responsibility
varies widely by state and claims often emerge long after a policy
has expired, which makes assignment of damages to the appropriate
party and to the time period covered by a particular policy
difficult. In establishing reserves for these types of claims,
management monitors the relevant facts concerning each claim, the
current status of the legal environment, social and political
conditions, and claim history and trends within the Company and
the industry.

EMC Insurance Group Inc. is an insurance holding company. The
Company conducts operations in property and casualty insurance,
and reinsurance through its subsidiaries. It primarily focuses on
the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to
small and medium-sized businesses. These products are sold through
independent insurance agents who are supported by a decentralized
network of branch offices. The majority of its business is
marketed and generated in the Midwest. The Company conducts its
insurance business through two business segments: property and
Casualty Insurance, and reinsurance. EMC Insurance Group Inc., a
61% owned subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty Company
(Employers Mutual).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Had 1,130 Fibro Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 1,130 asbestos-related cases pending
against NL Industries, Inc., 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 have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us. There are 1,130 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 1,643 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,298 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued
any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of
liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, including:

* facts concerning historical operations,

* the rate of new claims,

* the number of claims from which we have been dismissed and

* our prior experience in the defense of these matters.

We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are
not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

NL Industries, Inc. (NL) is a holding company. The Company
operates in the component products industry through its majority-
owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in
the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 87%
interest in CompX International Inc and 30% interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. The Company also owns 100% of EWI RE, Inc., an
insurance brokerage and risk management services company. CompX is
a manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of
applications and industries. Kronos is a global producer and
marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments. In July of
2011, CompX completed the acquisition of an ergonomic component
products business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Drug in Late-Stage Human Testing
--------------------------------------------------------
Allison Connolly and Sonali Basak, writing for Bloomberg News,
reported that Heather Von St. James, 45, remembers her father, a
demolition worker, coming home covered in dust and dirt. Still,
she'd hug him each night and, sometimes, put on his coat and shoes
to play.  Thirty years later, she paid a price. At age 36, with a
3-month-old daughter, St. James was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a
deadly, incurable cancer tied to asbestos exposure that can take
decades to develop and often kills within months after symptoms
appear. She was told her only chance to live was to have a lung
removed.  She opted for surgery, and later learned she had excised
the disease in time. "There a lot of people who don't," St. James,
of St. Paul, Minnesota, said by telephone.

Last year, more than 107,000 people worldwide died from
mesothelioma. Now, drugs developed by a wave of drugmakers, from
tiny Verastem Inc. (VSTM) to giant GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK), are
bringing new hope that the deadly disease's silent march within
the body may be slowed or stopped.

"This is not a curable cancer," said Dean Fennell, the lead
investigator in a trial studying Verastem's drug. "It's not a
disease that can be wiped out completely by surgery as you see
with lung cancer. Finding ways to stop that process or slow it
down can have big implications for patient survival."

Mesothelioma, unlike lung cancer, mostly affects the cells
covering the lungs, and can also strike tissues around the heart
and abdominal organs. As with all cancers, doctors treat
mesothelioma by cutting it out, or irradiating it, both of which
can carry dangerous side effects.

Verastem, Glaxo

The drug being developed by Cambridge, Massachusetts-based
Verastem is in late-stage human testing. London-based Glaxo's
compound is being tried in combination with another product in an
early-stage study. Both target an enzyme involved in cell
movement, allowing the cancer to spread.

The enzyme is overabundant in many tumors and is a hallmark of
aggressive cancers that spread quickly. Patients with an inactive
gene called Neurofibromatosis 2, or NF2, respond best to such
drugs, and about half of mesothelioma patients have inactive NF2s.

Verastem has been granted orphan drug status in the U.S. and
Europe for its product, VS-6063. That means it would have seven
years of market exclusivity from the time of approval. If cleared
for sale, the drug may generate $450 million by 2019, according to
the average of four analysts' estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Earliest Stage

The medicine, also known as defactinib, targets cancer at its
earliest stage: cancer stem cells, which are thought to be the
source of the cancer and often resist existing therapies.
Mesothelioma cancer stem cells are particularly hardy in that they
can survive chemotherapy, Fennell, who is chairman of thoracic
medical oncology at the University of Leicester in England, said
in an interview.

"The hope is we can suppress the cancer in such a way that it
becomes a more chronic disease, rather than have a disease that's
going to progress relentlessly and kill the patient," said
Fennell, who doesn't have a financial stake in Verastem and isn't
a paid consultant, according to the company.

While Verastem, which has a market value of about $215 million, is
developing the drug on its own, it has an array of industry
heavyweights providing guidance. Board members and advisers
include former Genzyme Corp. Chief Executive Officer Henri
Termeer; Eric Lander, a principal leader of the Human Genome
Project; and Phillip Sharp, a Nobel laureate who helped establish
the company now known as Biogen Idec Inc.

Controlling Ownership

"Controlling ownership of our products is key to value creation,"
said Robert Forrester, Verastem's chief executive officer. "As we
pursue clinical development and possible commercialization, we
want to make sure that we retain the potential for a significant
return on the development investment we are making for our
shareholders."

AstraZeneca Plc of London is testing tremelimumab, which it
licensed from Pfizer Inc., in mesothelioma in a mid-stage trial.
The treatment works differently from the other drugs in
development in that it helps the immune system recognize and kill
cancer cells.

Glaxo, the U.K.'s biggest drugmaker, plans to test GSK2256098 in
combination with some of its other medicines to potentially make
cancer treatments more effective, Carolyn Buser-Doepner, vice
president for tumor signaling at the London-based company, said in
an interview. In one early-stage trial, it will be paired up with
Glaxo's Mekinist, which is approved for melanoma.

"The pre-clinical data are very encouraging," she said. "We're
very excited about it."

Boehringer's Drug

Glaxo said it will continue developing the drug after selling most
of its cancer medicines to Novartis AG for as much as $16 billion.
Novartis will have the right to partner with Glaxo on the product.

A fourth drug, nintedanib from Germany's Boehringer Ingelheim
GmbH, is in early-stage testing for mesothelioma, according to a
spokesman. It works differently than the other two medicines,
targeting three proteins involved in the formation of blood
vessels that feed tumors.

While it's encouraging to see treatments being tested for
mesothelioma, the kind of research most likely to yield
improvements in care is that looking into the nature of the
disease itself, said Noel Snell, director of research at the
British Lung Foundation.

"It is shameful that this kind of fundamental research remains so
drastically underfunded, and that the number of trials available
for mesothelioma patients is still dwarfed so dramatically by the
number available to other cancer patients," Snell said in a
statement.

Miracle Fiber

Asbestos was commonly used in building materials such as
insulation for years because it was cheap, abundant and heat-
resistant. Considered a "miracle fiber," it has been the subject
of lawsuits claiming losses and damages from asbestos-related
illnesses.

While some countries have banned asbestos mining, it continues in
Russia, China and India, and the World Health Organization
estimates as many as 125 million people worldwide are exposed to
asbestos either at work or in their homes.

Mesothelioma can lay dormant for as long as 50 years before
spreading, which explains why rates have risen long after many
countries have banned the substance.

New cases in the U.K., where asbestos was restricted starting in
the 1980s and outlawed fully in 2006, were 2,125 in 2012 and are
expected to peak in 2015. Rates have been stable in the U.S.,
hovering around 3,000 new cases a year since 2000 due to education
efforts, though a complete ban was overturned in the courts.
Canada, which was one of the world's largest asbestos exporters,
closed its remaining mines in 2011.

Japan 'Tsunami'

In Japan, where asbestos has been banned since 2006, the
government pays the full cost of treatment for related illnesses
and rates are expected to rise until 2027. Ken Takahashi, the lead
author and director of a World Health Organization occupational
health group, warned that Asian governments must brace themselves
for an "asbestos tsunami."

"In the early '70s, this was an incredibly rare disease," Fennell
said. "Now my clinic is full of patients with mesothelioma.
Because the rates are increasing, we have a real need now to
identify effective treatment."

For survivors like St. James, who has trouble breathing during the
Minnesota winter with her one remaining lung, a solution can't
come fast enough. She volunteers to coach patients through the
deadly cancer, and says it's hard to watch so many friends lose
the battle.

"The survival rate is pitifully 4 percent, most people don't live
past 15 or 18 months," she said. "If they can keep it under
control, that's the first hope."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Operator Says Fibro Brought Into Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------
William Westhoven, writing for Daily Record, reported that
residents in Roxbury, Boston, township leaders and state officials
agree on one point -- toxic hydrogen sulfide emissions coming from
Fenimore Landfill must be eliminated.  But now, there may be at
least one more problem buried in the infamous dump: asbestos.

A day after his attorney filed a court appeal to obtain soil
samples from Fenimore, which was seized from his company by the
state Department of Environmental Protection, Rich Bernardi,
authorized agent for Fenimore owners Strategic Environmental
Partners, said that he accepted materials including asbestos at
the landfill from a DEP-authorized recycling center.

"SEP did not test the DEP recycling center material because we
were not required to by the DEP," said Bernardi, who functions as
the SEP principal although his wife, Marilyn, is listed as the
sole owner. "The recycling centers are not allowed to take
asbestos. If the DEP allows asbestos to go through their recycling
centers who knows what else slipped through the DEP system."

SEP attorney Matthew M. Fredericks wrote in his appeal that he
wants soil samples taken from 21 gas-extraction wells recently dug
by DEP contractors attempting to eliminate the foul-smelling
hydrogen sulfide gas that has disturbed and sickened residents in
the area since late 2013.

Fredericks says the samples are crucial to the defense of his
clients, who were declared by the New Jersey Superior Court, Law
Division, in Morristown to be liable for "all related costs" to
the Fenimore remediation.

"SEP has a property right and a due process right to have the
material evaluated to allow SEP to present its own expert opinion
on the proper handling of the material rather than to simply
accept the NJDEP's plan and be stuck with the cost," Fredericks
wrote in his appeal. "The protocol for testing issued by the DEP
did not require SEP to test materials coming from DEP-licensed
facilities. SEP reasonably relied upon the DEP facilities to send
only approved, permitted materials. Now we want to see what was
sent to the landfill by the DEP Class B recycling centers but the
DEP won't permit the testing."

"This is why the untested, DEP-regulated, DEP-licensed recycling
center (construction and debris) should be tested," Bernardi
wrote.

DEP spokesperson Larry Ragonese said that the department cannot
comment on Bernardi's allegations because of its ongoing
litigation with SEP.

DEP, though, has been aware of the presence of asbestos at
Fenimore since before the gas emissions were first detected.
According to a letter dated July 11, 2012, provided by Bernardi
and addressed to DEP manager John Castner from Thomas P. Voorhees
of the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development's
Asbestos Control and Licensing division, three of seven samples
taken from suspected construction debris accepted at the site
tested positive for asbestos.

"The inspection and sampling targeted only visible accessible
surface debris. It is our department's opinion that further
investigation of surface and subsurface material would yield
additional asbestos-containing materials," Voorhees stated in his
letter.

It is not known whether DEP followed Voorhees' suggestion to
further investigate the presence of asbestos, but by late 2012,
the focus had shifted to the hydrogen sulfide emissions, with
protests and subsequent legislation allowing DEP to seize the
landfill under emergency order in June and begin remediation
efforts.

Roxbury Township Manager Christopher Raths said his understanding
was, following Voorhees' report, that "DEP provided SEP with an
assessment of the situation and a plan for SEP to address and
abate the presence of asbestos."

Bob Schultz, president of the Roxbury Environmental Action
Coalition, claims DEP has not followed up on Voorhees'
recommendations.

"It is very worrisome that DEP would let asbestos into the site,"
Schultz said. "We would like to know why there was no further
investigation into the asbestos or any other contaminants and
toxins that might be there."

DEP announced its final decision to cap the landfill last month
and remediation efforts are already under way, including the
boring of 21 gas extraction wells.

Last month, after DEP denied their request for similar soil
samples, Roxbury officials petitioned the court to obtain them.
But Superior Court Judge Robert J. Brennan denied the request,
agreeing with DEP attorneys that collecting the samples could
delay their remediation at Fenimore. He scheduled a followup
hearing, but the Roxbury council and Mayor Jim Rilee later dropped
their challenge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Presence at PTSC
---------------------------------------------
Marlene Augustine, writing for Trinidad and Tobado Newsday,
reported that tests done in specific areas of the Public
Transportation Service Corporation (PTSC) headquarters in Port-of-
Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, have confirmed the presence of
asbestos in seven of 13 sections tested, leading to staffers
expressing fear to return to work.

PTSC executives and worker representives from the Transport and
Industrial Workers Union (TIWU) attended a meeting at the National
Carnival Commission (NCC) VIP Box at Queen's Park Savannah, Port-
of-Spain to address present concerns of working conditions at
PTSC.

PTSC General Manager Ronald Forde said tests were done at 13
sections of the corporation's headquarters and seven came back
positive for the presence of asbestos, however additional testing
was being done by Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI)
to get the situation under control. Test results are to be
released and based on these findings, PTSC management will decide
on a definitive course of action to deal with the asbestos problem
and also to assist workers who may have been exposed to asbestos.

"This problem was there since in the railway days and it is the
first time any management has taken an initiative to address the
problem and get it rectified. Testing was done three weeks ago and
a report was submitted by our contractors, which was presented to
members of the Board of PTSC.

"There is a planned strategy to deal with the matter, but before
anything more is done, we await the results from CARIRI. Our
management and staff are taking every precaution to make sure the
workers, including myself is safe," Forde said.

Also present at the meeting was Public Services Association (PSA)
president Watson Duke who emphasised that he was concerned about
the importance of the health and safety for the workers, and asked
that Forde ensure the workers be given a clean bill of health.

An informative presentation was done by the Dave Jacob, Managing
Director of Green Engineering -- the company which carried out the
tests at the corporation's building -- who said once the fiber is
not disturbed or no one has been exposed to the asbestos, there
should not be a problem. However, once inhaled it can cause lung
cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. Staff members, with more than
20 years with the company, raised concerns and questions based on
the information in Jacob's presentation. Workers indicated that
the asbestos was disturbed due to repairs done at various parts of
the building over the years. They also indicated that most of the
workers who came in contact with the asbestos did not use
protective gear.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Project Halted for Fibro Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS6Albany.com reported that a councilman in the city of Albany,
in New York, claims asbestos might have been improperly removed
from the roof on the Philip Livingston Magnet Academy.  The
company removing it says they did not put anyone in danger.

Common council member Ronald Bailey said, "the people who were
working on this abatement had the white uniforms on and the masks
but they didn't care about the people outside this fence.  They
shot it down the chute and the wind is blowing it all over like
the wind's blowing. So everybody's inhailing it." Another company
working on asbestos removal inside the building said it was
following proper protocol on its project.

"The area's completely plasticized," said Molain Gilmore, owner of
Precision Environmental Solutions.  "You're in containment you
can't come out.  When you're in there you're fully suited and
respirated inside.  How about the actual asbestos itself?  The
asbestos itself is double and in some cases triple baged and
tagged." But neighbors still have concerns about the old building
close to their homes -- and the work that was being done on the
roof.

"I've been watching the construction when I pass through here, and
I don't like it because asbestos that's very dangerous for
people," said Frank Ruemmele.

A representative who handles media relations for WinnCompanies,
which is developing the property, contacted us saying that no
construction activites were done illegally here.  Safety and
health of the community and construction workers is a top
priority.  She went on to say construction resumed normally and is
being done in full compliance.

There was initially a discrepancy between who was responsible at
for the removal of asbestos on the roof at first.  Precision
Environmental Solutions was thought to be responsible because it
had a permit on file with the City of Albany.  WeatherGuard Tecta
America was working on the roof and did not file a permit.  A stop
work order was issued on roof asbestos removal.  WeatherGuard has
since filed for its permit, and representatives from that firm
deny any wrongdoing in the process of removing the asbestos.  Ed
Lawless from WeatherGuard said his company goes above and beyond
what is standard procedure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Former Marks & Spencer Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shields Gazette reported that the departure of the Marks &
Spencer store from South Shields, in England, has taken a new
twist -- after asbestos was found inside the premises.  The
potentially-deadly material was discovered after the iconic
retailer closed the King Street premises at the end of last month.

A spokeswoman for Marks & Spencer said: "Yes, the store does have
asbestos in it, but that in itself is not that surprising.

"A lot of buildings which date from before 1990 in the UK have
asbestos inside them."

The spokeswoman declined to comment any further.

Habro Properties, the London-based owners of the vacant former
Marks & Spencer building, were unavailable for comment.

The environmental health team for South Tyneside Council would
only be informed of the presence of asbestos in a building if
there were plans to carry out work to remove it.

The local authority declined to comment on the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Isle of Man Arsonists Issued with Fibro Warning
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC reported that Isle of Man police have warned arsonists to seek
medical attention after a derelict building containing asbestos
was set on fire.  The blaze broke out at the Malew football ground
in the south of the island.

A police spokesman said the building, which was surrounded by
fencing, clearly displayed warning signs.

"Whoever set fire to it may have been exposed to asbestos fibres
and should seek medical attention," he said.

Anyone with information about the arson attack should contact
Castletown police station.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holbury Campaigners Celebrate Fibro Removal Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yandell, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that
campaigners in Holbury, England, celebrated after it was revealed
that a waste disposal firm is planning to move deadly asbestos
away from their homes.  Solent Environmental Services (SES) is
seeking consent to close an asbestos transfer station in the
middle of Holbury and move it to a new site on the outskirts of
the village.  The existing facility is near homes, shops and the
New Forest Academy -- formerly Hardley School & Sixth-Form.

But large metal containers full of asbestos dust will be
transferred from Long Lane, Holbury, to Hardley Industrial Estate
if the scheme is approved.  The application has been welcomed by
ward councillor Allan Glass, who was among those who campaigned
against plans to open the current site.

Cllr Glass said: "It means the facility will be shifted away from
residents, children walking to school and people visiting the
local Co-op store.

"It may not be the best outcome for people living near the
industrial estate, but they'll be further away from the asbestos
than those living in the Long Lane area."

Fellow campaigners include parish councillor Barry Coyston, of
Ivor Close, who lives near the existing transfer station.  He
said: "When it leaves we'll raise a glass and say 'thank goodness
for that'. But while I'm happy it's moving away from here, I'd
like to see it closed down."

Hampshire County Council, which is due to debate the application
on May 21, has so far received five objections to the proposed
change of location.  The planning application says: "Solent
Environmental now have new offices and are to move all operations
to Hardley Industrial Estate.

"Solent Environmental acknowledge that the perception of exposed
asbestos is not likely to be welcomed by the community so propose
to exceed the codes of practice."

An SES spokesman added: "The existing transfer station has been
operating for a number of years, with no issues being raised by
either the Environment Agency or the county council."

The facility was opened in 2010 despite a huge campaign mounted by
people living in Long Lane and Ivor Close.  Critics claimed that
cancer-causing fibres might escape into the air, leaving a deadly
legacy that could lie undetected for 20 years.

Asbestos is stripped from buildings, including schools and
offices, double-bagged using industrial strength material and
taken to SES, where it is stored before being transferred to a
licensed disposal site.

But bosses at SES have always insisted that people in the area are
not at risk.

Contracts manager Ian Chiddicks was once asked if he would be
happy living next door to the site himself and replied: "Knowing
the facts, yes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Admits Bungling Fibro Work
------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fairbanks, writing for The Buffalo News, reported that during
their work at the Kensington Heights housing complex, in Buffalo,
New York, Ernest Johnson's employees dumped asbestos down holes
cut in the floor.  They also failed to adequately treat the
cancer-causing material while it sat waiting for leak-tight
containers.

One of the consequences, the former contractor acknowledged, was
the repeated release of asbestos into the environment around the
East Side complex.  Johnson's admissions are part of a plea deal
in which he acknowledged his company's role in bungling the five-
year-old clean-up effort of Kensington Heights, a collection of
vacant public housing towers.

"There was asbestos left in the buildings," said Assistant U.S.
Attorney Aaron J. Mango.

By pleading guilty to violating the federal Clean Air Act, Johnson
became the most important defendant to admit guilt in the case.
His company, Johnson Contracting of Western New York, was accused
of orchestrating a scheme designed to cut corners at Kensington
Heights and then cover it up.

Visible from the Kensington Expressway, the 17-acre complex on
Fillmore Avenue is owned by the Buffalo Municipal Housing
Authority and at one point was targeted for demolition as part of
a larger plan to redevelop the site into a $105 million retirement
community.

Until now, the only defendants in the case to take plea deals have
been compliance monitors hired to inspect Johnson's work. Those
monitors, from JMD Environmental Inc. of Grand Island, have
admitted falsifying inspection reports to cover up the fact that
asbestos remained in some of the buildings they had certified as
clean.

JMD and Johnson shut down shortly after they were charged in a 23-
count grand jury indictment in 2011, and the charges against both
companies have since been dismissed.

The government's case against the remaining defendants, including
a now-retired state Labor Department inspector and two City Hall
inspectors, is scheduled to go to trial in two weeks, and Johnson
could be among its key witnesses.

"The defendant agrees to cooperate with the government," Mango
told U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara.

In return for his cooperation, Johnson could receive leniency when
he's sentenced by Arcara. He is currently facing up to 30 months
in prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forbes Says 4th Cir. Decision Boon to Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Chenoweth, writing for Forbes, reported that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision on April 16 in
a case called Company Doe v. Public Citizen that signals hope for
asbestos defendants who are seeking to combat fraudulent claims in
North Carolina. Those claims were brought in connection with a
bankruptcy proceeding styled as In re: Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC et al. ("Garlock"). How could an anonymous CPSC
case from Maryland affect a gasket company's asbestos bankruptcy
from North Carolina? In a word: transparency. Both cases involve
the ability of third parties to gain access to documents enmeshed
in public litigation.

In issuing its ruling in Company Doe, the Fourth Circuit surely
had no inkling that its words might cheer long-suffering asbestos
defendants. However, that court's insistence on transparency and
public access to the judicial process bodes well for an asbestos
case in which similar issues have been percolating. When the
district court (and perhaps eventually the Fourth Circuit) hears
motions from asbestos defendants and others about divulging sealed
documents from the Garlock asbestos bankruptcy docket, the recent
decision in Company Doe will surely loom large. There is no
guaranty as to where the Fourth Circuit ultimately will come down
on the sealing issues in Garlock. But it does appear that a new
day is dawning, and -- if the Court of Appeals acts consistently
with its stated policy favoring public access in Company Doe -- it
just might prove to be the Day of Reckoning for fraudulent
asbestos plaintiffs and their trial lawyer accomplices.

Company Doe Takes Two Steps Forward in District Court

Company Doe v. Public Citizen, No. 12-2209 ("Company Doe"),
started when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission received
a "report of harm" and sought to post it on its new government-run
product safety database website. [Full disclosure: I worked as
legal counsel to CPSC Commissioner Anne Northup from 2009 through
2010, but left before this report of harm was received.] The
report alleged that a company's product was related to the death
of an infant, but the company strongly objected that the report of
harm was not accurate. When the company could not obtain
satisfaction through direct negotiations with the Commission, it
was forced to file suit against the CPSC in federal district court
in Maryland (where the CPSC is located) to enjoin the Commission
from posting the erroneous report of harm.

In an unusual twist, the company asked the district court to
proceed under two special conditions. First, the company sought to
remain anonymous (hence, the "Company Doe" title of the case).
Second, the company asked to seal most or all of the proceedings.
Because the entire point of the company's case was to prevent its
being falsely associated with an infant's death, the company
argued that allowing its identity to be disclosed in court -- and
then immediately in the newspapers and across the internet --
would defeat the very relief that it sought. Furthermore, the
company contended that the court should seal any documents in the
case that could be used to deduce its identity. The agency and
several self-appointed consumer groups objected to both
conditions. Nevertheless, the district court granted the company's
request for anonymity, sealed many records, and kept most filings
off the court's public docket.

Not only did the court rule in Company Doe's favor on anonymity-
related issues, but it ultimately sided with the company on the
merits too. The court significantly redacted its opinion in
Company Doe v. Inez Tenenbaum et al., as well as portions of other
documents that became public. But Judge Alexander Williams Jr.'s
decision made it abundantly clear that, by trying to post a report
of harm that was not related to the company's product, the CPSC's
actions were arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of agency
discretion, and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act:

"The Commission's position that the report should be published is
untenable. In violation of statutory and regulatory mandates, the
report is misleading and fails to relate to Plaintiff's product in
any sensible way . . .  In short, the Commission's decision is
unmoored to the CPSIA's public safety purposes and runs afoul of
bedrock principles of administrative law and the sound policies
that buoy them." (pp. 53-4)

Judge Williams issued a permanent injunction barring the agency
from posting the report of harm. Following this devastating,
point-by-point account of agency misfeasance, the CPSC tucked its
tail and chose not to appeal the decision. However, the same
consumer groups that had filed objections sought to appeal the
district court's rulings granting Company Doe's requests to retain
its documents under super seal and to proceed under a pseudonym.

Company Doe Takes One Step Back in the Court of Appeals

Here is where things get interesting for asbestos defendants --
and uncomfortable for the asbestos plaintiffs' bar. First, the
Fourth Circuit recognized the objectors' standing to appeal:

"Although Consumer Groups were neither parties to, nor intervenors
in, the underlying case before the district court, we nevertheless
conclude that they are able to seek appellate review of the
district court's sealing . . . orders because they meet the
requirements for nonparty appellate standing and have independent
Article III standing to challenge the sealing . . . orders." (pp.
4-5)

Having recognized the consumer groups' ability to appeal, the
Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decisions to proceed
under seal and pseudonym: "We hold that the district court's
sealing order violates the public's right of access under the
First Amendment. . . " (p. 5). The Fourth Circuit remanded the
case to district court and ordered all documents to be unsealed,
unredacted, and made available to the consumer groups and, indeed,
the general public. "We see no reason why the standing of news
media to seek appellate review of a district court's sealing order
should differ from that of a member of the general public." (p.
30). This partial appeal could not disturb Company Doe's
successful permanent injunction against the CPSC, but the Court of
Appeals ruling no doubt will discourage future companies aggrieved
by the prospect of erroneous reports of harm being posted on a
public government database from suing the Commission.

Meanwhile in the Garlock asbestos case, Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen
Group of America Inc., Honeywell International, and Crane Co.,
among others, have all filed motions seeking access to documents
held by the district court. What we already know about the
documents indicates that asbestos plaintiffs and/or their
attorneys have quite possibly committed fraud. The plaintiffs
swore in cases against Garlock that they had no known exposure to
asbestos other than from Garlock gaskets, but they then
subsequently filed claims with more than a dozen bankruptcy trusts
claiming exposure to the bankrupt companies' asbestos-laden
products as well. If Garlock was indeed victimized, then Ford
Motor and other companies have every reason to believe that they
were defrauded too -- and obtaining access to these documents
could prove that. Past efforts by third parties to obtain
documents from asbestos plaintiffs have typically not fared well.
However, given the Company Doe decision, other companies may want
to jump into the fray now, asserting their own interest in seeing
the sealed documents at issue in the Garlock case.

Something tells me that asbestos defendants can't count on Public
Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union
to unseal documents for them here. However, if and when Garlock
does make it up to the Fourth Circuit, perhaps it is not too much
to hope that Bloomberg, Inc., Dow Jones and Company, Inc., Gannett
Company, The New York Times Company, NPR, Inc., The Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press, Tribune Company, and The
Washington Post will renew the amicus position in favor of
disclosure that they took in the Company Doe case with equal vigor
and demand that the light of public scrutiny finally be shone on
documents held under seal for so long in asbestos cases.

How the Fourth Circuit's Company Doe Reasoning Applies to Garlock

Leaving to one side the merits of the Fourth Circuit's decision as
pertains to Company Doe -- whose identity remains undisclosed as
of this posting -- the opinion is an unalloyed positive for
asbestos defendants everywhere. By emphatically ordering the
entire district court docket unsealed, the Fourth Circuit
broadcast just how paramount it views the public's interest in
keeping court proceedings public. In particular the Court of
Appeals relied on three main points that should carry equal or
greater weight in the context of asbestos documents: (1) The Court
invoked a "presumption favoring public access to judicial
documents. . ." (p.10); (2) The Court indicated that it is
especially important to unseal documents to "promote[] the
institutional integrity of the Judicial Branch." (p. 30); and (3)
The Court indicated that privacy interests are diminished where
plaintiffs have voluntarily invoked the public process by going to
court.

The first argument, rooted in the First Amendment, is just as
strong if not stronger here than it was in Company Doe. The
district court ruled that Company Doe overcame that presumption
because of the harm it would suffer from disclosure, but the Court
of Appeals disagreed. Even the concurring judge reluctantly agreed
that it was not enough to assert a privacy interest, but that
Company Doe would have had to introduce evidence quantifying the
harm it would suffer from its identity being divulged in order to
carry its burden and prevail against the presumption of public
access to court documents.

Hence, the Court of Appeals ordered the Company Doe documents to
be unsealed even though the company won its case against the CPSC,
its permanent injunction was left intact, and Company Doe stands
accused of no wrongdoing in the matter whatsoever. If an already-
vindicated company's reputational interest does not justify
keeping documents sealed that threaten to besmirch it, then a
fortiori the potential evidence of guilty conduct on the part of
asbestos plaintiffs and their trial lawyers should not remain
sealed by the Fourth Circuit's reckoning.

The second argument in Company Doe likewise resounds even more
strongly in Garlock. The Court of Appeals noted that the statute
at issue in Company Doe was being reviewed in district court for
the first time and found that public interest in disclosure is
heightened "by the fact that this legal action marked the first
challenge to the accuracy of material sought to be posted on the
Commission's database." (pp. 52-3). The court was concerned that
the public be able to assess the district court's decision
properly, and it noted that public confidence in judicial outcomes
may flag if "important judicial decisions are made behind closed
doors and then announced in conclusive terms to the public, with
the record supporting the court's decision sealed from public
view." (p. 30, cite omitted).

Given the potential in Garlock for explosive revelations, and
access for one of the first times to documents showing plaintiffs'
contradictory asbestos exposure claims, the public's interest in
access is also high here. The Garlock asbestos plaintiffs want to
keep documents sealed that may well contain solid proof of their
fraudulently induced and inflated settlements in asbestos cases
against numerous defendant companies who were sued more because
they were solvent than because their products are likely to have
led to any single plaintiff's asbestos-related disease. If that
does not go directly to the heart of the integrity of the Judicial
Branch, then it is hard to imagine what would.

The third argument regarding privacy is also every bit as strong
in the asbestos context. The Fourth Circuit argues that Company
Doe's privacy interests are diminished because it sought to
utilize the courts. Some might argue that Company Doe's use of the
court was a last resort forced upon it by a statutory scheme and
improper conduct by an agency that attempted to post factually
inaccurate information about Company Doe and/or its product on the
CPSC's saferproducts.gov website database. In any event, asbestos
plaintiffs have an even smaller privacy interest given their
aggressive and repeated resort to the courts to seek damages for
alleged asbestos-related injuries from multiple defendants.

Plaintiffs' lawyers may try to distinguish Company Doe by arguing
that individual asbestos claimants have a greater right to privacy
because plaintiffs' medical histories are inherently more private
than product safety complaints against a company.  But the key
potential fraud in these lawsuits involves whether plaintiffs lied
about being exposed to more than one product; that has nothing to
do with private medical history. Besides, the key legal principle
on which the Fourth Circuit relied remains the same here. One who
brings a claim into federal court thereby voluntarily surrenders
his privacy interests to the extent he wants the court to
vindicate his legal claims.  And every asbestos claimant can be
said to have voluntarily invoked the court's jurisdiction by
filing a claim with the bankruptcy court. It would be exceedingly
odd if the Fourth Circuit were to conclude that the privacy
interests of apparently fraudulent plaintiffs acting for their own
financial benefit are stronger than the privacy interests of a
wrongly-accused company facing a federal agency not acting in
accordance with the law.

Where Things Stand Now

Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled on April 11 that Legal
Newsline's appeal to the district court counseled against his
ruling on the unsealing motions right now, and he was willing to
have them all go up to the next level to be decided together
instead:

The Unsealing Motions either involve issues that are directly
before the District Court on Legal Newsline's appeal or are so
closely related that they are inextricably intertwined. That
appeal appears to be on a track to a timely resolution. The court
believes that . . . the most expeditious route to resolution of
the issues is to have all these matters presented to the District
Court when it considers the present appeal.

Whichever North Carolina district judge hears that appeal, it is
likely that the slap-down Judge Williams received for sealing the
records in the Company Doe case will be fresh on that fellow
judge's mind:

[W]e hold that the district court's sealing order violated the
public's right of access under the First Amendment and that the
court abused its discretion in allowing Company Doe to proceed
under a pseudonym. We therefore reverse the district court's
sealing and pseudonymity orders and remand the case with
instructions for the district court to unseal the record in its
entirety. (p. 61).

On the other hand, if the reviewing judge were to order
disclosure, she could become the next Hon. Janis Graham Jack (S.D.
Tex.), a federal district court judge who is justifiably famous
for exposing the rampant fraud in silicosis cases, which came
before her bench. Fraud in the asbestos docket is long overdue for
a similar, thorough examination. The timing of the Company Doe
decision may finally ensure that such an examination occurs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Actor's Widow Files Fibro Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
among the long list of industries that one expects to see involved
in an asbestos lawsuit, the television industry might not rank
high. Generally, when it comes to asbestos claims, plaintiffs and
their families tend to be involved in construction, oil and gas,
or other heavy industries. But, a recently filed asbestos lawsuit
alleges that even television actors are vulnerable to asbestos
injury.

According to Fox News, the family of actor Ed Lauter has filed a
lawsuit against CBS and General Electric (the company that at one
point owned NBC) alleging that Lauter was exposed to asbestos
while filming television shows for the networks. A claim was also
reportedly filed against Ford Motor Co. alleging Lauter was
exposed to asbestos through automobile parts.

Lauter was reportedly diagnosed with malignant pleural
mesothelioma in May 2013. He died at age 74 fewer than six months
later, in October. Mesothelioma is a rare, fatal cancer that has
been linked to asbestos exposure. The latency period can last
decades between the time of exposure and the time of diagnosis.

Lauter had worked in television and movies since 1971. Among his
credits were roles in television shows such as Charlie's Angels,
Magnum P.I., and ER. He was also in films such as The Artist and
Seabiscuit.

In 2011, the family of Merlin Olsen, a Hall of Fame football
player and actor, settled a lawsuit with several companies they
alleged were responsible for Olsen's death. Olsen died of
mesothelioma in March 2010 at age 69. Although details of the
settlement were not released, it was reported that 10 companies
that either manufactured or used asbestos products were included
in the settlement.

Olsen's family alleged it was his exposure to asbestos on
construction sites as a youth that caused his mesothelioma.

Olsen was a member of the Los Angeles Rams' "Fearsome Foursome" in
the 1960s. He also worked as a broadcaster and an actor following
his time in the NFL.

People who are exposed to asbestos without proper protection face
a risk of developing mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer, all
diseases that currently have no cure. Lawsuits have been filed
against companies that manufacture asbestos, companies that use
asbestos products and employers who allegedly failed to properly
warn their employees about the risks of asbestos or protect them
from those risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Defense Counsel Asks Judge to Stay Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that defense counsel in New York
City's coordinated asbestos docket have asked the court to stay
its order ending a deferral on punitive damages, saying that
counsel for the plaintiffs have subsequently requested the remedy
in every case on trial against every defendant.

In an April 28 letter that was later characterized by plaintiffs
as "replete with misconceptions and wholly inaccurate factual and
legal generalizations," the defendants argue that the recent
decision permitting asbestos plaintiffs to petition for punitive
damages in the most serious cases has spiraled the docket "into
chaos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Exposure to Goodyear Gasket Overturned
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California appeals court
has reversed a decision awarding summary judgment to Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Co. in an asbestos injury case, determining that the
defendant failed to show that its gasket material could not have
been the cause of a former boiler worker's asbestos-related
injuries.

The First Appellate District California Court of Appeal ruled
April 29 that evidence presented by Goodyear does not answer the
question of whether plaintiff Donald Fields was exposed to
Goodyear's Wingfoot sheet gasket material prior to when the
defendant says it no longer contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Dismisses Fibro Vinyl Floor Tile Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New Jersey federal court
has granted Union Carbide's motion for judgment on the pleadings
in an asbestos vinyl floor tile case, agreeing with the defendant
that the lawsuit was filed more than two years late.

In the April 30 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey additionally noted that the defense attempts to
obtain judgment on the pleadings went unopposed by the plaintiff.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Joel I. Gensler, who was
allegedly exposed to asbestos in vinyl floor tiles installed in
his home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Drops Reinsurance Suit v. Excalibur
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Travelers Casualty Co. has
voluntarily dismissed its suit against Excalibur Reinsurance Co.,
seeking $108,705 in reinsurance proceeds for an underlying
settlement of asbestos claims brought against Zurn Industries.

According to an April 30 notice filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Excalibur neither answered
Travelers' complaint nor moved for summary judgment.

Travelers Casualty issued an umbrella policy to Zurn, which was in
effect from April 1, 1983, to April 1, 1985. This policy was
reinsured under three facultative certificates written by
Excalibur through its participation in the Johnson & Higgins
Willis Faber Syndicate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Branchburg Library
------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Bichao, writing for My Central Jersey, reported that the
township's library will be closed indefinitely after officials in
April discovered asbestos and lead in the building housing the
Branchburg Reading Station, in New Jersey.  The library, a branch
of the Somerset County Library System, has been closed since last
month.  Library and township health officials did not return calls
or emails seeking comment and other details were not available.

The Station House building on Olive Street in Neshanic Station
also was the site of township recreation programs.

"Safety for all of our patrons is an utmost priority," SCLS
Director Brian Auger said in a prepared statement. "Discovering
toxic materials at the Branchburg Reading Station will necessitate
remediation. In the meantime, we want to make sure that all
Branchburg residents are welcome at all of the SCLS libraries.

Auger said that library card holder might borrow materials from
the system's 11 other locations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Comes Down on Business for Fibro Training
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reported that two Tacoma business owners entered
guilty pleas in Pierce County Superior Court after Washington
Attorney General Bob Ferguson leveled multiple charges against
them for allegedly selling substandard asbestos worker training
courses and certifications.

The business is Environmental Management Training Services LLC.

Timothy Pinckney pleaded guilty to 10 separate charges -- six
counts of forgery and four counts of making false statements --
and Pamela Pepper, Pinckney's business partner, pleaded guilty to
five separate charges, including three counts of forgery, one
count of making a false statement, and one count of official
misconduct by a notary public.

AsbestosFerguson's office alleged that from 2010 to 2013, EMT
charged a fee to provide required asbestos training to students,
but the company then failed to provide the required training, or
provided no training at all. The company would then certify to
employers and to state regulators the workers were trained as
required, according to Ferguson's office.

"Substandard and fraudulent training of asbestos workers poses an
obvious and substantial risk to public health and safety,"
Ferguson said in a statement.  "This is exactly the type of
misconduct my environmental crimes team seeks to deter."

The Criminal Investigation Division of the federal Environmental
Protection Agency led the investigation, assisted by the
Washington Department of Labor and Industries and the U.S.
Attorney's Office.

Training to handle asbestos a hazardous substance and known
carcinogen, requires a 32-hour course. State and federal law
require any person seeking accreditation as an asbestos worker to
complete four eight-hour days of training, which must include
lectures, demonstrations, hands-on training and individual
respirator fit testing. The student must then pass a closed-book
examination, and certified workers must also take annual refresher
courses.

Based on the joint investigation, the state alleged EMT was
selling its training certificates without ensuring workers took
the required training and passed the required tests. The state
alleged Pinckney sometimes cut the length of the class sessions to
as little as 30 minutes in length, provided answers to the closed-
book examinations, or simply took payment in exchange for
certifying a worker had attended the course and passed the test
when the worker did not.

Pinckney and Pepper then certified that students were trained as
required and charged their employers for the training, the state
alleged.  Pinckney and Pepper also submitted certification
applications claiming students had successfully completed the
required training and passed the examination when they knew the
workers had not, according to investigators.

As part of the plea, Pinckney and Pepper provided information that
assisted in tracking down the workers and companies who sought to
obtain fraudulent training certificates.  This investigation is
ongoing and more charges are expected, according to the attorney
general's office.

Pinckney was sentenced to four months confinement and required to
forfeit his asbestos course teaching credentials.  Pepper was
sentenced to two months confinement and revocation of her notary
license.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Fibro Exposure at Kent Hospital
---------------------------------------------------------
ITV.com reported that an investigation has been launched after
reports asbestos was disturbed in a hospital, in Kent, England.
A roof in the clinical waste area of Royal Victoria Hospital in
Folkestone was damaged on th evening of April 29.  The hole was
discovered when staff came to work the following day.
Asbestos particles can be released when the material is damaged or
broken up can be harmful to health and can be carried on skin,
clothing or tools putting friends and families at risk.

Kent Police have said that anyone involved in damaging the roof
may have been exposed and should therefore seek medical help.
The hospital has had to recruit specialist cleaners to make sure
the area beneath the roof has not been contaminated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Case Fails Tests, Pa. Court Holds
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a state appeals court has
affirmed awards of summary judgment to two defendants in a take-
home asbestos exposure case, agreeing that the plaintiff failed to
establish that his work in a Pennsylvania refinery placed him in
sufficient proximity to the defendants' products.

In an April 24 decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that
plaintiff Allen Groover did not satisfy the state's frequency,
regularity and proximity test required in order to establish
causation. Groover alleged in a lawsuit filed against numerous
defendants that his wife was exposed to asbestos brought home on
his clothing for more than 30 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Judge Refuses to Move Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that saying it is "perfectly
capable" of handling complex issues of state law, a federal court
in Louisiana has retained jurisdiction of a take-home asbestos
exposure case that has been pending for more than four years and
is now ready for trial.

Writing for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, Judge Carl J. Barbier ruled on April 24 that he would
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the mesothelioma case now
that defendants who removed the matter based on a federal officer
defense have been dismissed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Exposure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court has denied an asbestos plaintiff's petition for allowance of
appeal of an appellate court's finding that the plaintiff waived
questions presented to the court by not raising them in a separate
appeal that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a one-page order issued April 24, the state high court denied
the petition without comment.

The plaintiff had asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review a
Pennsylvania Superior Court's conclusion that the plaintiff could
not now appeal summary judgment awards entered at the same time as
those entered for other defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Building of New Aldi Halted Due to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davies, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that work to
build a new Aldi food store in Norris Green, in Liverpool,
England, has stopped amid concerns about asbestos.

Developers on the site put a halt to work there after fears were
raised residents living nearby could have breathed in potentially
harmful asbestos-laden debris.

Liverpool council says tests on the dust are being carried out but
Aldi say works stopped with "no known risks to public health".
The land, in Lorenzo Drive, was home to the former Sayers bakery
building until a fierce fire burned it to the ground in 2008.

Mary Wheeler, who lives near the site, said: "There's been lots of
dust the last few weeks. I panicked because it could have stirred
it (the asbestos) up and we could have all been breathing it in.

"I'm concerned about my grandson because he has asthma."

A spokesman for Liverpool council said: "We received complaints
about this site a couple of weeks ago and immediately took action
because of the possibility of asbestos owing to its former use.

"The developers stopped work on the site immediately on a
voluntary basis. Further investigations are being carried out and
work will not restart until the council is satisfied that it can
be carried out in a safe manner.

"Consultants employed by the developer are carrying out samplings
of dust and the result of those are awaited.  A further meeting
with the developer will be held shortly."

When planning permission was granted for the store, Liverpool
council told Aldi they would need to undertake site investigations
to make sure the land was safe and submit a report to the council
before starting full scale works.

A spokesman for Aldi told the Sunday ECHO: "Works stopped on site
as the planning conditions which allow works to commence had not
been discharged yet.

"Preparatory works to ready the site for full scale excavation
works took place only.  The works stopped at the early stage of
the construction process with no known risks to public health.

"The council's environmental health officers are up to date with
progress at the site and no concerns have been raised in regard to
the site at this stage. Once all conditions have been discharged
Aldi will be back on site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Wins Damage Against Firm
---------------------------------------------------
Cyprus Mail reported that a British pensioner exposed to
industrial quantities of deadly asbestos dust decades ago has been
awarded more than GBP100,000 (121,825 euros) in damages after
contracting terminal cancer.

Expat Norman Turner -- who now lives in Paphos, Cyprus, from where
he launched legal action -- endured "filthy, disgusting"
conditions during more than three years working as a training
officer in a chemicals factory in Liverpool, between 1966 and
1969.

The 67-year-old recalled how a "fog" of toxic dust hung in the
atmosphere while he worked and piles of dangerous material
collected on surfaces around the site.

"I took the job because I wanted to better myself. I thought it
would be a good place to work because it was a big employer. But
the conditions were terrible," said Turner, speaking at the
conclusion of his civil case against his former employers
Courtaulds, now known as Akzo Nobel.

"The asbestos dust was thick like a fog. I mainly worked in the
nylon section and it was everywhere. Most evenings when I got home
from the factory I would have to rinse out my nostrils.

"I knew the conditions were bad for us, they were totally filthy
and disgusting. But I had no idea just how dangerous it was. I can
remember complaining to the bosses that we need better ventilation
to clear out the dust because it was hard to breath."

Turner, originally from Bootle, was employed as a training officer
ensuring staff knew how to operate the large industrial machinery
in the factory and how to escape in the event of a fire.  But
little did he know that he was surrounded by a greater danger.
The building's pipe work was lagged with asbestos which showered
down when maintenance work was carried out. The poisonous dust was
left to gather on the floor for at least a day before being
cleaned up, Turner claimed.

"The pipe work was covered in asbestos and was old and crumbly. I
also remembered the pipes being repaired and workmen cutting the
lagging off. It showered dust down. Chunks of the lagging would
also fall off from time to time. The dust was everywhere but there
was no warning about the dangers."

Turner, who did not want to be photographed, left Courtaulds to
join the army. After serving in the forces, Turner set up his home
in Leeds where he worked as a porter in St James Hospital until
retiring to Cyprus seven years ago.  It was not until April last
year that the fit and active pensioner realised his heath was
rapidly deteriorating.  He found himself breathless just taking
his regular stroll along the Paphos coast. Doctors immediately
recognised the signs of asbestos related mesothelioma.

X-Ray's revealed a dark shadow down one side of the lung and a
pale shadow over half of the other.  Doctors drained four litres
of fluid from his lungs. The widower, who lost his wife Margaret
to cancer in 1986, has now undergone seven rounds of debilitating
chemotherapy which has helped shrink the size of the cancerous
growths.  But he said remaining as active as possible and positive
was helping him to stave off the crippling onset of the deadly
disease.

"When the doctor told me I had mesothelioma I knew it was serious.
I know it was bad news. The medical treatment has been good here
in Cyprus but everything costs," he said. "This payment was
crucial just to keep my head above water."

He said he was determined to remain positive.

"If I had one piece of advice for anyone undergoing chemotherapy
it would be to get up and walk. Do anything active, do whatever
you can. It left me feeling lethargic but I do as much as I can.
The doctors told me that it would be hard but if I could stay
active it really helps the treatment work."

"Although Norman's amazing positivity is helping him cope with his
condition, he is now living with the consequences of being exposed
to asbestos all those years ago. Asbestos related cases are a
ticking timebomb," said Turner's lawyer, Louise Larkin, of London-
based, Slater & Gordon.

"Norman's life will be cut short and he faces significant medical
bills in Cyprus because of the conditions his former employer
subjected him to."

Larkin explained that Turner's case also demonstrated that despite
having been exposed to asbestos decades earlier, victims could
still get justice -- even if they live in another country
thousands of miles away.

"Living abroad should not be considered a barrier if there is past
exposure to asbestos in the UK. There may be other expats who do
not realise that they can claim in the UK."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Findings Over Mr. Fluffy Fibro Unveiled
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that Mr
Fluffy asbestos infiltrates houses like "sand migrating through an
hourglass" and can be present while still remaining invisible to
the naked eye, according to a scientific analysis of a
contaminated house that had to be pulled down in Downer last year.

The report, obtained under freedom of information laws, paints a
frightening picture for 1050 households in the ACT that have had
Mr Fluffy loose amosite asbestos removed from their ceilings.
Forensic testing of the wall cavities and subfloors found
dangerous amounts of asbestos due to the loose particles falling
through cracks in the ceiling space. It also confirmed that
microscopic particles still clung to bricks and wood, even after
cleaning.

According to the report by Robson Environmental, the home at 25
Bradfield Street in Downer presented with "extensive"
contamination. The home was missed during the $100 million
Commonwealth removal program in 1988 but the report noted some of
the amosite insulation had previously been removed from the home
by the then owners and "modern yellow synthetic fibre bats had
been used to disguise the contamination".

The findings were so grave, the ACT government wrote to all Mr
Fluffy homeowners in February, recommending they did not disturb
any internal wall or subfloor spaces and to get an asbestos check
by a licensed assessor to ensure fibres were not migrating into
homes.

Photographs taken during the forensic deconstruction of the Downer
property showed visible drifts and concentrations of grey amosite
fibres -- which are a grade 1 carcinogen -- in numerous parts of
the home. It was present in an old laundry vent, in a floor duct
in a bedroom, in the attic space, all over bricks and mortar, on
studs, rafters, on electrical wires and clumped under the
subfloor.

When the cornices were removed, "a large amount" of asbestos was
present.

Electron microscope scanning was conducted on brick surfaces after
they had been cleaned, confirming that microscopic particles
remained attached to the bricks but were invisible to the naked
eye.

The federal remediation program, conducted over five years from
1988, included the removal of visible asbestos only.  During the
deconstruction phase of the Downer home -- which took place over
three months last year -- the home was encased in a bubble.

Work Safety Minister Simon Corbell played down the implications of
the report, saying the Downer home was atypical in that it was
missed during the original remediation program and had been left
to age with large amounts of amosite in the roof cavity.

But the report author and Robson's manager of hazardous material
Ged Keane said the state of the Downer home was "very typical" of
a number of the Canberra homes he had inspected over the past two
months since the government's warning went out.

Mr Keane noted that some of the homes presenting with
contamination had had to have parts of the home sealed and, in at
least two cases, families had to temporarily move out.  He said
the areas of most potential danger to homeowners were around
built-in cupboards and cornices, and where ducted heating had been
installed with subfloor access.

Mr Keane said it was vital the ACT government come up with a long-
term strategy to deal with the contamination.  He estimated 90 of
the 100 homes he had recently inspected were safe to live in but
he urged homeowners to check the condition of their cornices and
around built-in cupboards. All Mr Fluffy homeowners had been
warned not to disturb any walls or subfloors.

Mr Corbell said the government was still considering advice on how
to proceed with safeguards for homeowners, renters, tradespeople
and potential buyers of Mr Fluffy properties.

Meanwhile the ACT government has been rebuffed by the Commonwealth
for the $2 million cost of deconstructing the Downer property, and
other costs associated with remediating three other homes that
were missed during the program.

"The Chief Minister has written to the Prime Minister on a number
of occasions in relation to asbestos remediation assistance across
the territory and remains determined on pursuing an agreement with
the Commonwealth Government to assist in the remediation of sites
contaminated prior to self-government," Mr Corbell said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Family Seeks Ex-Colleagues
-----------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that the daughter of a painter and decorator who
died of a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work is
appealing for former colleagues to help with an investigation into
his death.

John Gormley, known to colleagues as 'Irish Sean', died from
mesothelioma -- an asbestos-related cancer affecting the lining of
his lungs -- in October 2013, aged 87.  His family has instructed
lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate his exposure to the
deadly dust when he worked for Sheffield Public Works Department.
His daughter Katrina Slater is urging anyone who worked with her
father to come forward.

John, was born in Northern Ireland and moved to Walkley,
Sheffield, with his family around 1964 and began working for the
Sheffield Public Works department from about 1965.  He spent 30
years as a painter and decorator.

Katrina, 50, of Sheffield, said: "My father was well known and
well liked and was quite a character, who enjoyed going out to
local pubs with his friends.

"He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2013, and died six
months later.

"I just want to raise awareness about the hazards of asbestos for
the benefit of others who, like my father, may come into contact
with asbestos unknowingly."

Simone Hardy, from Irwin Mitchell, said: "Mesothelioma takes
decades from the asbestos exposure for any disease to develop,
which can make it difficult to trace former colleagues."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dump in New South Wales Cleaned Up
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wright, writing for South Coast Register, reported that the
illegal asbestos dump in Nowra, in New South Wales, Australia, has
been removed by a private company.

When Neil Wallace from Asbestos Reporting and Mark Afflick from
MGA Contracting learnt a pile of asbestos had been left on a
public track for more than four months after authorities were
notified, they decided to act in the interests of public safety.

Crown Lands was responsible for cleaning up the site.

Asbestos removalists from MGA Contracting in Ulladulla came to
Nowra to remove the material after being contacted by Mr Wallace.

"Normally WorkCover would require a five-day notification of
asbestos removal but if the situation is deemed urgent enough they
will waive that," Mr Wallace said.

"Obviously they thought it was a danger to the public, because
they allowed for its immediate removal."

Nowra resident Chris Clarke originally reported the asbestos dump
earlier in the year but discovered months later nothing had been
done.  After being contacted in March by the Register, Crown Lands
confirmed it would appoint a contractor to remove the material.

Contacted again by the Register Crown Lands said it would clean up
the material.

Mr Wallace thought in the interests of public safety, it was best
to remove it as soon as possible.

Mr Afflick said it was an odd situation and agreed it was best to
remove the material and worry about who was responsible for it
later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner Fears Home Will be Sold to Cover Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonno Nash, writing for Geelong Advertiser, reported that
Bellarine Bayside, the appointed Committee of Management for the
local coastal reserve from Point Richards in Portarlington to
Edwards in St. Leonards in Australia, has said there is no need
for concern after large asbestos fragments were sprawled along the
Indented Head esplanade and left unattended for more than 24
hours.

Visible remnants of a fibro roof damaged in a vandalism raid at
the Beachlea Boat Hire company were only removed by experts Monday
morning.  A brazen youth, captured on CCTV, allegedly punctured
drill holes into seven of the fleet's 10 boats, smashed huge holes
into the shed roof and super-glued padlocks.

It is the second incident aimed at the 50-year-old company in two
weeks, when a small group of teenagers allegedly attempted to set
the site alight in April.

Security footage revealed a balaclava-clad suspect, believed to be
in their teens, fleeing the scene on a bicycle.

Police were alerted on a Sunday morning and members of the crime
squad attended the scene at the next day.

Owner Rodney Ludlow, who has operated the popular company for 10
years, fears he might have to sell the family home to finance the
damage bill, which is likely to exceed $100,000.

Mr Ludlow, 46, believes the culprits are local pranksters and says
his seven-day-a-week business could go under water.

Broken pieces of asbestos on the ground after they were smashed
from the roof.

"I'm shattered. I'm still in shock (and) am worried for my safety.
There were a few tears. It probably hasn't completely sunk in
yet," Mr Ludlow said.

"It's closed the business down and it will probably impact trade
for local businesses until the asbestos is cleared up. I'm unsure
how I'm going to reopen.

"The fact we've got to shut down is going to hurt me and my family
big time. The loss of trade will be quite big too.

"I think we've got a suspect. Someone tried to burn it down about
two weeks ago. They drilled holes all through the door and put a
petrol rag and paper all through it. We think it's the same
person."

Mr Ludlow anticipates repairs will unlikely be completed by the
summer peak season.

"The way Bellarine Bayside drag their heels we'll be lucky to get
in before Christmas," he said.

"I'd even be surprised if everything was sorted that quickly. It's
all heritage and things like so it's a red tape nightmare.

"It's an iconic business and people are going to miss out on
fishing. We're going to try and open in some capacity maybe at
another location."

Mr Ludlow says he attempted to contact Bellarine Bayside of the
hazardous material but calls went unanswered, despite the local
agency claiming to be available 24 hours a day.

Bellarine Bayside CEO Kevin Craig said asbestos handlers cleared
the site in an hour.

"As soon as we learnt of the incident we responded immediately and
secured the site," Mr Craig said.

"I will need to review things in order to find out why this has
occurred. We have qualified people on-site to remove asbestos and
we've done that, and the site is secure now."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk May Rise with Safety Body Abolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Nicholson, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that one of
Australia's leading advisors in asbestos law fears management of
the deadly fibres will decrease and victims increase following
recommendations to the Abbott Government to scrap a key
eradication and safety measure.

The Commission of Audit recommended the abolition of the Asbestos
Safety and Eradication Council among 42 bodies earmarked for the
chop.

Slater & Gordon's senior asbestos lawyer Margaret Kent said
serious concerns were raised about the audit's recommendation that
the council should be abolished and its agency consolidated.
Ms Kent said the key responsibility of the council was to oversee
the safe removal of asbestos and its abolition would tell to the
community that this serious public health issue was no longer a
priority.

"This proposed minor cost cutting measure is false economy because
it ignores the long term health and economic costs that could
result from watered-down efforts addressing this vital public
health issue," Ms Kent said.

"The recommendation to consolidate the entire Asbestos Safety and
Eradication Agency provides great uncertainty about future
resources and begs the question whether experienced staff will
keep their positions.

"And wiping out the entire asbestos council that is supposed to be
wiping out this deadly dust is a bad move and fair minded people
would not support it.

"We see first-hand what even small exposures to asbestos can do to
one's health -- it can result in significant and debilitating
disease with enormous consequences for individuals, families and
communities.

"Once asbestos is disturbed, fibres that are released into the air
can be inhaled and can lead to deadly diseases including
mesothelioma.

"We must do more, not less to eradicate the risks.

"Since 1980, more than 33,000 Australians have died from asbestos-
related disease.

"Many more could die if we as a community lose focus on
prevention.

"We would urge the Federal Government to retain the Asbestos
Safety and Eradication Council and not push this important public
health issue down the agenda."

In Western Australia, a private members bill to bring the state in
line with the rest of the country and allow WA sufferers of
asbestos-related diseases to claim further compensation is
currently before parliament.

The Asbestos Diseases Compensation Bill 2013, if passed, will
allow West Australians diagnosed with additional asbestos-related
diseases the legal right to seek further damages -- in line with
similar legislation in other states.  The bill's author, Upper
House member Kate Doust, said under WA law victims could only
receive compensation once, even if they later developed further
health problems.  Ms Doust said, as WA laws currently stood,
people who received compensation for asbestosis could not receive
further financial support for mesothelioma or lung cancer brought
on by asbestos exposure.

"What this bill would seek to do is allow at a later stage they
can actually go back and seek additional compensation," Ms Doust
said.

The bill could also allow courts to award provisional damages and
damages to compensate for any loss or impairment to the victim
from doing domestic duty or caring for another person, such as a
child.  Each year about 250 West Australians die from diseases
connected with exposure to the deadly fibres.

Between 1960 and 2008, about 1400 men and 220 women in WA were
diagnosed with mesothelioma.  The high toll is attributed to what
is considered one of Australia's largest industrial disasters --
mining blue asbestos in Wittenoom in the Pilbara.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derbyshire Fibro Victims Urged to Speak Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Derby Telegraph reported that people suffering from an asbestos-
related cancer were invited to discuss their experiences at a
conference in Derby.

The Mesothelioma in the Midlands Conference was organized by
Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team and Asbestos Support West
Midlands.  It was slated to take place at the Spot banqueting
suite, in Wilmot Street West, on May 12, and aimed to give people
affected by the condition information about present and future
treatment -- along with an opportunity to share their experiences.

Joanne Gordon, co-ordinator of the Derbyshire Asbestos Support
Team, said asbestos remained the single biggest cause of work-
related deaths in the UK.  She said: "This conference is important
-- not only for people to hear about treatment options and support
available -- but also to share their experiences, to be involved
with campaigns for a better future and to have their voices
heard."

Among those attending will be Gerry Slade, mesothelioma specialist
nurse at Papworth Hospital, in Cambridge, and David Waller,
consultant thoracic surgeon at Leicester's Glenfield Hospital.

Other speakers include Chris Knighton, from the James Lind
Alliance; Kate Green, the Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston; and
representatives from Macmillan Cancer Support and the Asbestos
Support Groups' Forum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Indicted In Illegal Fibro Abatement Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
WWNYTV.com reported that a 36 year old former state corrections
officer has been indicted for allegedly releasing a hazardous
material into the environment.

A Jefferson County grand jury has found there's enough evidence
against Aaron Netto to try him on third-degree endangering public
health, safety, or the environment, second-degree reckless
endangerment, second-degree making an apparently sworn false
statement, and tampering with physical evidence.

Between October 4 and October 9, 2013, Netto is alleged to have
knowingly released over 1,000 pounds of friable and non-friable
asbestos-containing into the environment while conducting an
illegal asbestos abatement at 222 Academy Street in Watertown.

He's accused of failing to equip workers with proper protective
equipment and creating a substantial risk to neighbors by
releasing asbestos into the environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Jurors Award $6.5-Mil. in Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Iowa jury has awarded
$6.5 million to a former plumber who testified that he came into
contact with asbestos-containing products while working with Weil-
McLain's boilers.

The Iowa District Court, District 2A, jury reached the verdict on
April 25, allocating 25 percent liability to the lone remaining
defendant. Judge Stephen P. Carroll presided over the trial.

Plaintiff Larry Kinseth alleged that while working for his
family's plumbing business, he came into contact with asbestos-
containing boilers that were made and sold by defendant Weil-
McLain.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Jurors Reach Defense Verdict in Fibro Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a a Louisiana jury has found
in favor of two asbestos defendants, rejecting claims of a former
pipefitter and welder whose family said he was exposed to asbestos
while working at several local shipyards.

The Louisiana Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans
reached the verdict on April 29 after seven days of trial and two
hours of deliberations. John Crane Inc. and Steel Grip Safety
Apparel (f/k/a Crane Packing Co.) were the lone remaining
defendants at the time of the verdict, sources said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Appeals for Help in Compensation Battle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester Evening News reported that the widow of a joiner who
died from asbestos-related cancer aged 64 is appealing for help to
find out where he contracted the disease.

Bernice Legge was devastated when husband Alan Legge died in
February 2012, just four months after complaining of a persistent
cough.  She says she knows her husband was exposed to asbestos
during his working life and says she is determined to find out
where it happened.

Bernice, 64, from Middleton, near Rochdale, in England, is
fighting for compensation with the help of Manchester law firm
Pannone.  She wants Alan's former workmates to help in her fight
by telling her where he husband was exposed to the deadly dust.
She said: "Alan was a joiner and worked for Manchester Direct
Works from 1962 when he began his apprenticeship, through to the
mid 1970's.

"I know he worked at a number of construction sites including a
lengthy spell at a block of flats called Vauxhall Court on
Rochdale Road in Middleton. He also did a lot of maintenance work
for Manchester council and this I'm sure involved ripping out old
kitchens.

"I remember him coming home covered in dust, which was undoubtedly
was sometimes asbestos dust and I never once recall him telling me
that he was provided with any form of protection in the form of a
mask to stop him inhaling the dust."

Bernice, who has two daughters, five grandchildren and a great-
granddaughter, said: "I'm even frightened that my children and I
were exposed to asbestos from it being on his work clothes when he
came home.

"To see my husband suffer with this dreadful cancer which was
caused through no fault of his own, was a terrible experience for
me and all the family.

After leaving Direct Works, Alan worked for a number of firms as a
joiner in and around Manchester. Patrick Walsh, a specialist in
industrial disease cases at Pannone, now part of law firm Slater
and Gordon, said: "I would be very grateful for anyone who knew
Alan Legge when he worked for Manchester Direct Works or any of
the other firms, to contact me, as I am anxious to learn more
about the prevalence of asbestos in these workplaces. I can be
reached on 0161 909 6436."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Halted at Former King Fuels Site
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beam, writing for The Record, reported that work has been
halted at the former King Fuels site, in Troy, New York, as an
investigation of an asbestos issue in the area was launched by
federal and state agencies last week.

Stop-work orders from the state Department of Labor could be seen
at both entrances of the approximately 42-acre site, calling for
assessment and cleanups as well as variances from the contractor.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation as well as the
Environmental Protection Agency are also involved in the
investigation.

The site is currently owned by the city's Local Development Corp.,
Casale Excavating, owned by local contractor Charles Casale, has
been contracted to do all of the demolition and removal work.

According to Andrew Kreshik, project manager for the King Fuels
site, an operator for Casale called DOL claiming he was
"uncomfortable" with something he had done. Kreshik also said
there was a complaint lodged with DOL claiming criminal activities
occurred on the site, such as trying to bury asbestos-contaminated
material.

Kreshik showed several areas that could be of interest, including
one new item he said appeared.  There was one pile of debris
containing what he referred to as a concrete asbestos board, which
he was sure would test positive for containing asbestos but said
it was not friable asbestos.

Kreshik also showed another pile where a brick was covered in a
tar-like substance, of which DOL had taken a sample. The brick was
contained in a pile from the demolition of buildings 4 and 5 on
the site, as well as other debris in the area near the building,
and was being mixed with clean dirt to be used for backfill, which
Kreshik said is a common practice.  Then there was the wrapped
pipe, which he said would most likely contain asbestos.

No work can be done on the site until test results conducted by
DOL come back.

Kreshik claimed due diligence had been done on the buildings the
LDC was looking to take down and said Casale was under the
impression he was working on buildings that did not have asbestos
exposure after abatement was done by Atlantic Contracting on
specified structures. He added the LDC followed the guidelines set
out by DOL for demolition and disposal.

Kreshik also said the air monitoring variances, performed by
Alpine Environmental, was properly sent to DOL as well as
notification of work being done by Atlantic to DOL and EPA.

The site has been used as a dumping ground for nearly 20 years,
Kreshik said, whether its other contractors or other people,
adding it could be why some material had been found there.

It's a reason the LDC will discuss, during its meeting, the topic
of installing surveillance cameras to further monitor the site
since it is not the most closed area.

Depending on the results from the DOL, Kreshik said the
investigation could pose a problem for the rest of the project,
including the environmental remediation planned by National Grid.

"They won't do anything until the asbestos is cleaned up," Kreshik
said.

Still, he claimed the investigation being performed is broader
than the project itself, as he said the LDC was merely tasked with
removing the safety hazard, which are the buildings, and
facilitate the site's remediation.

The investigation could also result in the LDC having to do the
cleanup of approximately 40 acres of any asbestos contamination on
the site where there is no identifiable source to place liability.

The site became a controversial one after former city Engineer
Russ Reeves resigned in late April over differences in public
safety. Reeves claimed plenum walls were taken down by Casale in
close proximity to a 12-inch gas main maintained by National Grid,
which he said could have caused injury or fatalities.

The LDC has claimed the walls taken down were done from a safe
distance and did not even require a permit for demolition. The LDC
also questioned why Reeves had any concerns as it is a private
project on private property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Training Company Pleads Guilty in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that Washington Attorney General Bob
Ferguson announced that he obtained two guilty pleas from Tacoma
business owners who allegedly sold substandard asbestos worker
training courses and certifications.

Environmental Management Training Services LLC allegedly charged a
fee to provide required asbestos training to students. The company
allegedly failed to provide the required training before
certifying the workers were trained to employers and state
regulators.

The allegedly shoddy certification process put untrained workers
at risk to release asbestos into the air where it could be inhaled
by the workers or the public. When released into the air, asbestos
can cause lung disease, cancer and other serious ailments.

"Substandard and fraudulent training of asbestos workers poses an
obvious and substantial risk to public health and safety,"
Ferguson said. "This is exactly the type of misconduct my
environmental crimes team seeks to deter."

Timothy Pinckney and Pamela Pepper, the operators of Environmental
Management Training Services, pleaded guilty to charges brought
against them by Ferguson's office. Pinckney pleaded guilty to 10
separate charges, including six counts of forgery and four counts
of making false statements. Pepper pleaded guilty to three counts
of forgery, one count of making a false statement and one count of
official misconduct by a notary public.

Pinckney was sentenced to four months confinement and the
forfeiture of his asbestos course teaching credentials. Pepper was
sentenced to two months confinement and revocation of her notary
license.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Underway in Stockton Station
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Phillips, writing for The Record, reported that a spokesman
for the Stockton, California Fire Department said it is uncertain
when Station 6 will reopen as workers continue asbestos abatement
efforts in the 1940s-era building just south of The Haggin Museum
in Victory Park.

Fire department spokesman Jeff Whitlock said the facility at 1501
Picardy Drive has been closed since April 5 but could reopen by
the end of this month. On the other hand, the closure could last
longer.

"If it's closed past May, we'll get a formal notice to citizens,"
Whitlock said. "Right now, it's seen as a temporary closure. . . .
There's no estimated date for moving back in."

The building was tested for asbestos. Results are expected. The
possibility of the presence of asbestos in Station 6 originally
was raised by a former Fire Department employee, Whitlock said.

The major concern about the closure is its possible effect on
response times. Whitlock said the department's goal is to respond
to calls within four minutes. He said despite the closure,
response times have been unaffected. Stations 2, 4, 9 and 10 are
filling the void. The department's water-rescue unit, ordinarily
housed at Station 6, has been moved to Station 2 for the time
being.

"We're still meeting that four-minute response time at almost all
locations," Whitlock said. "It's just a little bit more call
volume at the surrounding stations."

Asbestos is a building material that was banned decades ago,
because prolonged inhalation can cause severe illness, including
lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Facing Fibro Perjury Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Sara Warner, writing for CityWatchLA.com, reported that a slow-
motion train wreck in one of America's longest running personal
injury communities is expanding beyond legal theory, potentially
dragging hundreds of families back into lawsuits they thought were
settled -- families that already endured heartbreaking litigation
over asbestos-related cancers.

At issue is a North Carolina bankruptcy case involving a company
called Garlock Sealing Technologies, which makes gaskets, some of
which contained asbestos and were used by the Navy and others.

Facing thousands of asbestos-related claims, Garlock is seeking
bankruptcy protections.

A federal judge named George Hodges came out of retirement to
oversee the case and, as the Reuters wire service reported, has
". . . found what he called a 'startling pattern' of abuse by
plaintiffs' lawyers may have shifted the landscape of asbestos
litigation with a ruling in favor of manufacturers."

In effect, the court decreed that lawyers had "manipulated"
evidence to get more money. Bankrupt companies have created court-
approved "trust funds" to address current and future liabilities.
This is particularly common in asbestos-related liabilities. In
what may be a legal first, the court allowed defense lawyers
extensive access to bankruptcy trust information. The outcome was
alarming, suggesting a pattern of perjury.

On first blush, it appears that victims may have told one story to
one trust, another story to another trust, and sometimes even a
different story to juries. This could result in what defense
attorneys call "double dipping."

Plaintiff's lawyers say "no big deal," the decision only addresses
mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos, not all debts, and that
this is an outlier case where the judge ignored decades of
precedent.

Who cares, right?

After all, it's just what NPR called a "murky" legal fight between
big plaintiff firms and bigger corporations over huge money. In
Garlock, plaintiff's sought $1.3 billion for victims of
mesothelioma and the court ordered only $125 million.

But you detect the looming problem in stories like a National Law
Journal report about insurance companies jumping onto the Garlock
bandwagon.

Insurers point out that some of the money paid by those trusts was
likely owed to them to offset claims paid. Guess what? They want
it back, and "Garlock" fuels that effort, threatening to reopen
cases believed "final." The NLJ ominously quotes one insurance
company filing that includes ". . . this [Garlock] court's opinion
suggests pervasive fraud on the part of asbestos claimants and
their counsel."

That's right. Not just "counsel" but "claimants" -- or what we
might think of as "victims."

As families get drawn into the fray, it is bound to catapult this
issue into the political spotlight, as it's no secret trial
lawyers underwrite much of the Democratic party.

Look, as a Democrat in a mostly Republican family, I've always
defended victim's attorneys as champions in offsetting certain bad
business behavior. But even my liberal relatives admit, if only
privately, that some attorneys have become greedy in the absence
of financial transparency and public-company style reporting. Hey,
we Democrats welcome oversight, right?

"Garlock" could be a game changer because it drives a wedge
between attorneys and their clients -- I've called them "perjury
pawns."

Or maybe not. We've actually seen a similar situation a decade ago
involving exposure to silica dust, which can cause fatal disease.

That blew up when United States District Judge Janis Jack of
Corpus Chrisi, Tex., blasted lawyers in a 249-page decision citing
thousands of bogus cases while slamming the entire process,
sanctioning plaintiffs'-side law firms and calling medical
findings "worthless."

Federal prosecutors even got involved. The New York Times wrote
that the "tort wars" were at a turning point. The Times was wrong.

But, the silica fiasco had relatively many plaintiffs seeking
lower payouts. That made it difficult to go after individuals.
When it comes to mesothelioma, we're talking about relatively few
clients getting relatively large payouts -- usually in the
millions of dollars.

And in the silica cases, you did not have huge insurance companies
with a virtual fiscal responsibility to recover money already
paid.

I'm not the first to say that the Democrats and the plaintiff's
bar need to lead in discovering what, if anything, has gone wrong
in tort litigation. We know the GOP-controlled House of
Representatives will hold hearings. State lawmakers have already
taken note: Both Ohio and Wisconsin have passed asbestos trust
transparency legislation.

What's missing is a focus on victims. We all know that victims and
their families did what their lawyers advised them to do. They
should not find themselves facing perjury claims on top of their
tragedy.

A hearing in the Democratically-controlled Senate Judiciary
Committee might help; Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
would be a strong voice to insulate families from revisiting old
wounds.

It's one thing to embrace political allies like the trial lawyers,
but I'm hoping my fellow Democrats shed light on this gray area.
By doing so, and by focusing on protecting victims, we can avoid
some of the election-year debris from this particular train wreck.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Nearly Complete at Camsell Hospital
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that after a decade-long delay, redevelopment of
the old Charles Camsell hospital, in Alberta, Canada, is expected
to take a step forward that asbestos removal is nearly complete.

The hospital in the Inglewood neighbourhood was closed in 1996.

Architect Gene Dub and other investors bought the property in 2004
but little has happened since then, much to the dismay of area
residents. Dub blames the delay on his former partners and the
cost of removing asbestos.

"Much more money had to be accumulated to take out all of the
asbestos. We just ran into asbestos everywhere we turned in this
building."

Removal should be complete in about a month. At that point, Dub
says he can start marketing the project. Once he sells 100 units,
work can begin in and around the existing structure to transform
the old hospital into 230 residential units.

Residents say they've heard that promise before.

"We've kind of come to a stop," said Bernie Pettigrew from the
Inglewood Community League.

"We've been treading water way too long so let's get a little bit
of swimming happening in this pool."

Dub understands why residents may be skeptical.

"I really feel bad about the way its happened for the sake of the
people who live across the street from this site," he said.

"But I'm hoping it will all pay off in the end. I think the final
product will be exciting."

A fire broke out on the roof of the hospital after a torch used by
workers ignited some insulation.

However, damages were estimated at only $5,000 since the rooms
were slated for demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Wins Access to Garlock Files
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that the wall of
secrecy plaintiff attorneys have erected around asbestos claims
has begun to crumble, as a judge in North Carolina granted Ford
Motor Co.'s request to see forms filed in a prominent bankruptcy
case as a way to ferret out suspected fraud and double-dipping.

Judge George R. Hodges rejected efforts by plaintiff attorneys to
keep the documents in the Garlock Sealing Products bankruptcy
sealed, saying the so-called Rule 2019 filings are "public records
available for examination."  Ford was joined by Volkswagen,
Honeywell, Crane, and AIG and two other insurers in seeking the
records, which those companies say may show that people who sued
them for asbestos exposure made conflicting claims about how they
were exposed when seeking money from the bankruptcy trusts.

The order represents a breakthrough for solvent companies that
complain they are the victims of a one-two strategy where
plaintiff lawyers craft lawsuits accusing them of causing their
clients' asbestos disease, then make completely different claims
to trusts set up by companies that were driven into bankruptcy
over asbestos liability. As more and more companies enter
bankruptcy, plaintiff lawyers have targeted companies like Ford
and Volkswagen with questionable allegations that previously
wouldn't have carried much weight in court, or been worth much in
settlement negotiations.

Plaintiff lawyers target car manufacturers because they sold
vehicles with brake pads containing asbestos. Epidemiological
studies have failed to show that car mechanics have higher levels
of mesothelioma, the cancer most closely associated with asbestos
exposure, so Ford has an interest in showing that plaintiffs suing
it for such cancers have claimed exposure to more dangerous
substances elsewhere.

Insurers also want access to the records to pursue subrogation
claims against people who collected settlements for asbestos-
related disease while also tapping insurance policies to pay the
medical costs associated with it.

In his order, Hodges granted Ford and the other companies access
to the claims plaintiffs made against Garlock, including names and
the last four digits of the plaintiffs' social security numbers.
He denied access to the retention agreements with their lawyers,
which may show questionable fee-splitting arrangements but also
could be covered by the attorney-client privilege.

The ruling is a defeat for plaintiff lawyers who argued that the
filings with bankruptcy trusts weren't public documents or
contained confidential information.

Normally 2019 filings are public like any other judicial record,
but asbestos lawyers in the early 2000s convinced judges to seal
their filings for a variety of reasons. Chief among them: The
records might reveal confidential "commercial information," such
as fee arrangements, that would hurt their business. Not only
would potential clients be able to play one law firm off against
another for lower fees, but the records might reveal fee-splitting
arrangements that violate ethics rules in most states. Lawyers are
not supposed to get fees for referring clients unless they do
significant legal work on the case, but the practice is common in
the industry where lawyers draw in clients with TV and Internet
ads and then hand them off to firms that focus on litigation and
settlement.

The lawyers also said the filings contained confidential medical
information, but that argument is undermined by the fact they
freely supplied the information for years before seeking to seal
2019 records, and plaintiffs must make all the same information
public when they sue. Manufacturers and insurers got additional
help last month after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
will consider any appeals in the Garlock case, ordered records in
a federal consumer safety investigation unsealed.

Not many people asked for 2019 files until Garlock was driven into
bankruptcy in 2010 by the escalating demands of asbestos plaintiff
lawyers. The company had been settling asbestos claims for small
amounts for years because its products contained a type of
asbestos believed to be 1/1000th as dangerous as the long-fiber
amphibole asbestos in insulation, and it was sealed in plastic. A
plaintiff who took such a case to trial would have a hard time
establishing the legal level of proof to win any damages. The
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a $500,000 jury verdict
against Garlock on this basis in 2011, saying that to blame a
pipefitter's mesothelioma on Garlock gaskets would "be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume."

By gaining access to Garlock's files, companies like Ford will
have more ammunition to mount similar defenses against asbestos
claims. Garlock also has records of claims filed with trusts
established by other bankrupt companies but people close to the
case told me there will likely be more litigation over whether
they are public records available for examination.

Garlock's bankruptcy involves most of the major asbestos law firms
and probably contains a significant percentage of the active
asbestos plaintiffs in the U.S. The documents therefore could
provide a valuable database for defendant companies to match up
plaintiffs against their claims in multiple venues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bath Electrician Wins Fibro Payout
---------------------------------------------------
Tristan Cork, writing for Western Daily Press, reported that a
pensioner who worked as an electrician on a host of the post-war
construction projects in the South West has won a claim against
the firm that employed him after he developed a lung disease years
later.

Richard Garnow, from Oldfield Park in Bath, England, worked on the
wiring everywhere from Berkeley Power Station to Frenchay
Hospital, but his employers, N G Bailey Ltd, did not do enough to
protect him from exposure to asbestos, even though its dangers
were known about at the time.

The list of places where he worked includes Bristol Aerospace,
Bristol Royal Infirmary, St Mary's Hospital, Bristol Eye Hospital,
Bristol Dental Hospital and the MoD sites at Ensley and Foxhill in
Bath, and the School of Infantry at Warminster, as well as
Government buildings including the Stationery Office in Clifton,
Bath's Gaunts House and the Flowers Hill Government building in
Bristol.

But in 2009, the pensioner from Oldfield Park developed a cough
and began to have trouble walking - and was found to have
developed a condition known as diffuse pleural thickening, one of
the first signs of what could develop into the lung disease
mesothelioma. The out-of-court settlement agreed with his former
employer allows him to claim again if he develops that disease.

Mesothelioma is known grimly as "The Swindon Disease" as so many
of the town's pensioners have developed the debilitating and
ultimately fatal cancer from exposure to asbestos while working at
the rail works in the decades after the war.

Health chiefs in the town have long warned they are expecting a
spike in cases in the second half of this decade, and are
beginning to report that deaths are rising.

The town is home to one of the UK's leading industrial disease
lawyers, who has fought to win compensation for the workers,
Brigitte Chandler. She said Mr Garnow's case showed that it was
not only Swindon Rail Works employees who were exposed to
asbestos. The Bath man worked close to boilers, pipes and ducts
lagged with asbestos and also installed electrical cable. He had
to drill holes into walls and ceilings made from asbestos boards.

"Many public buildings contained asbestos in the past and
maintenance staff such as electricians would have been regularly
been exposed to asbestos when working in these areas," she said.

"Sadly, the number of people dying from mesothelioma and lung
cancer continues to increase due to the widespread use of asbestos
in the 1950s, 60s and 70s," she added.

"Anybody who has worked around asbestos in the past should seek
medical advice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment for Goodyear Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a California appeals court has ruled that a gasket
manufacturer failed to prove a former Navy mechanic was not
exposed to its asbestos-containing gasket sheet material and
should not be granted summary judgment, reversing a lower court's
decision.

Plaintiff Donald Fields filed an appeal with California's First
District Court of Appeals on Sept. 17, 2012, after defendant
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company was granted summary judgment.
Agreeing with Fields, the court ruled that Goodyear did not meet
its additional burden of production and that Fields produced
evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact.

Judge Steven A. Brick delivered the unpublished opinion on April
29, with judges Anthony Kline and James A. Richman concurring.

Fields filed his lawsuit on Nov. 9, 2010, including negligence and
strict liability claims against Goodyear. He asserts he was
exposed to asbestos during his work as a mechanic from 1955 to
1992. Fields worked as a boilerman, welder and boiler tender in
the United States Navy from 1955 to 1968, a welder in Virginia
from 1969 to 1974 and a boiler tender in Virginia from 1968 to
1975 and worked on automobiles as a shade tree mechanic until the
early 1990s.

The complaint was filed against several defendants, including Does
1 through 8500. On April 1, 2011, Fields filed an amendment to his
complaint, substituting Goodyear for Doe No. 11.

His claims against Goodyear arise from his alleged use of the
company's Wingfoot sheet gasket material from 1955 to 1967 during
his work with boilers. Fields alleges he would cut the gasket
material manufactured by Goodyear to size from the sheets. Scrap
pieces would fall to the floor and would eventually be reduced to
dust as workers walked on them. Fields added that the dust would
then be swept up, creating airborne dust.

On Feb. 3, 2012, Goodyear moved for summary judgment, arguing
Fields had no proof that he was ever exposed to an asbestos-
containing product manufactured by Goodyear.

Goodyear referenced Fields' deposition, in which it says he failed
to provide any specific recollections of working with Goodyear's
Wingfoot sheet gasket material prior to the late 1970s. Asbestos
was removed from its gasket materials then.

Fields' deposition was taken on June 9, 2011, which was more than
six months before Goodyear moved for summary judgment. Fields
testified that he used the Wingfoot gaskets during his career but
couldn't pinpoint any specific time or place.

Goodyear submitted the deposition of former employee Ernest
DeMarse, which was taken in Kentucky as part of an unrelated
lawsuit, in an effort to support its contentions that it did not
manufacture or sell asbestos-containing gasket material after
1969.

The company also presented evidence concerning other brands of
gasket material it might have been associated with, but Fields
only disputed arguments concerning Wingfoot gasket material.

Fields objected to DeMarse's deposition in his opposition, arguing
that it was barred according to the Code of Civil Procedure and
California Rules of Court rule 3.1115, the opinion states.

Fields also submitted a declaration including a Goodyear brochure
with a depiction of a sheet of material imprinted with the words
"Goodyear Wingfoot." He then asserted the picture in the brochure
is a "fair representation of the logo of Goodyear Wingfoot I saw
on sheet gasket material I worked with during my time in the
Navy."

Fields included a declaration of expert Charlie Ay, who said that
because Fields described using Wingfoot gaskets in high
temperature and high pressure applications prior to 1970, it more
than likely contained asbestos.

However, Goodyear objected the declaration, arguing it
contradicted Fields' deposition testimony.  Then on April 18,
2012, the court held a hearing regarding the motion for summary
judgment in which it overruled Goodyear's objection to Fields'
declaration.

The court stated, "I think that your client identified the
product, and I know that there is some dispute about it in his
deposition, when he had some difficulty making some
identifications of Goodyear Wing Foot. But I think that he went on
to explain it. So I'm not having a problem there."

The court added that Goodyear shifted the burden of production.

"I don't -- the issue is, can you, plaintiff, prove that the
product Wing Foot, that was involved in this case, contained
asbestos?" the court asked. "And I will be honest with you, I have
a problem with that. And that's my tentative -- or I'm leaning,
after reading this again last night, is to grant the [motion for
summary judgment]."

By April 26, 2012, the court granted Goodyear's motion for summary
judgment, contending the defendant sustained its initial burden of
production while Fields failed to provide evidence that created a
triable issue as to whether he was exposed to asbestos-containing
products attributable to Goodyear.

Fields appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its ruling. He
claimed his arguments that he used Goodyear Wingfoot sheet gasket
material prior to 1969 and that it more than likely contained
asbestos were triable issues of material fact.

"There is triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the
evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the
underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in
accordance with the applicable standard of proof," Brick wrote.

"A defendant bears the burden of persuasion that 'one or more
elements of' the cause of action in question cannot be
established, or that 'there is complete defense' thereto," he
added.

Goodyear then bears an initial burden of production to make a
prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of
material fact, the appeals court ruled.

"[I]f he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and
the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of
his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a
triable issue of material fact," Brick stated. "A prima facie
showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the
party in question."

In regards to Goodyear's burden of production, Brick wrote that it
did produce evidence in the DeMarse deposition showing it did not
manufacture asbestos-containing gasket material after 1969.

Brick wrote that DeMarse's testimony only provides evidence that
Goodyear ceased making asbestos-containing gasket material after
1969, but the complaint alleges Fields worked with Goodyear's
products before and after 1969.

"[G]oodyear's failure to introduce evidence showing that Fields
was not, or could not have been in contact with asbestos-
containing Wingfoot material before 1969 leaves open the
possibility that he was," Brick continued.

"Hence, by no negating contact with Goodyear's asbestos-containing
Wingfoot gasket material at all relevant times, Goodyear failed to
satisfy its initial burden of production," he added. "By itself,
that is a reason to reverse the judgment."

Brick explained that even if Goodyear had satisfied its initial
burden, it wouldn't have mattered. Fields' declaration included
evidence that he had been exposed to asbestos-containing Goodyear
Wingfoot sheet gasket material when he identified the logo.

Goodyear replied, stating Fields only raised "mere possibility"
that he was exposed to asbestos-containing Wingfoot gasket
material, which is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

However, Brick wrote that the problem with this argument is that
Goodyear's evidence does not address whether it distributed non-
asbestos-containing gasket material under the Wingfoot logo prior
to 1969.

"We have examined the DeMarse deposition and find no reference to
Wingfoot gasket material. Indeed, the excerpts provided support
the proposition that Goodyear stopped using asbestos in gasket
material in 1969, but not that it had sold non-asbestos-containing
gasket material, much less under the Wingfoot logo, prior to that
time," Brick wrote.

Brick explained that the question regarding summary judgment is
not whether a plaintiff will be able to carry his burden of proof
at trial that he was more than likely exposed to the defendant's
asbestos-containing products.

"Rather, the question is, assuming Goodyear had met its burden of
coming forward with evidence negating such contact, whether
plaintiff's opposing evidence created a triable issue on the
highly material fact of contact with defendant's product," Brick
wrote.

"The likelihood of plaintiff satisfying his trial burden plays no
role in determining whether a motion for summary judgment should
be granted or denied."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Dumped at Carramara Playing Field
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Pike, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported that
children's play areas were at risk of being contaminated with
asbestos after fibro sheets and hazardous material were carelessly
dumped in Carramar and Smithfield, in Australia.

Fire and Rescue NSW were called to Carramar at 10pm on May 6 after
a local resident reported the mess on the side of Quest Rd near
the entrance to Currawood Reserve -- less than 100m from a
children's play area and metres from nearby houses.

Fire and Rescue NSW acting superintendent Wayne Phillips was first
on the scene, where his crew found a dozen black bags of hazardous
material and fibro sheets.

"One of the bags we found was split open. When we arrived we put
this fog of water all over the area so if there is dust . . . it
drops back onto the pile," he said.

"After that we put the material in special bags."

Less than 12 hours later and only 6km away there was another load
of building materials was reported dumped at 8.20am May 7, this
time on Rosford Rd in Smithfield.

A spokeswoman from NSW Fire and Rescue said the Smithfield pile of
fibro sheeting was even bigger than the Carramar load, forcing
crews to shut the road for 30 minutes.  Fairfield police are
investigating the incidents. NSW Fire and Rescue were unable to
say whether the incidents were connected.  Fairfield Mayor Frank
Carbone said high taxes for dumping hazardous waste is encouraging
more and more people to dump illegally.

"It's shonky operators who do not want to pay the dumping fees and
are then charging people to dump the waste anyway," Cr Carbone
said.

"By dumping it in our streets and in our parks they are putting
our community at risk."

A spokesman for Fairfield City Council said "contractors will
carry out testing to confirm the presence of any hazardous
substances."

Individuals face up to a $1 million fine and or seven year' jail
for illegal dumping.  Over at Bass Hill, a large load of general
rubbish was found dumped May 7 on the side of the road along the
Hume Highway.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Responsible for Fibro Dumped at Park
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Crichton and Sarah Armaghan, writing for Newsday, reported
that Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota said that asbestos --
the kind that is easily airborne -- has been found in the
construction and demolition debris dumped at Islip Town's Roberto
Clemente Park in Brentwood, England.  Joseph Montuori, town parks
commissioner, was forced to resign, in a criminal probe of the
dumping.

At least one "unscrupulous contractor" was responsible for high
levels of asbestos left in an estimated 32,000 tons of debris
dumped at an Islip Town park in Brentwood, Suffolk County's top
prosecutor said.

Initial sampling from the surface at Roberto Clemente Park
confirmed components of the debris include asbestos-containing
materials -- some pieces of which contained asbestos
concentrations as high as 44 percent, District Attorney Thomas
Spota said.

The presence of the "dangerous contaminant" on the surface
requires extensive sampling to determine if there's more below.

Tests will also determine if the fill contains other toxic
material, such as petroleum products or heavy metals, Spota added.
Results of the full analysis may not come before early June.

"It's becoming clearer and clearer by the day that an
environmental nightmare is unfolding in Roberto Clemente Islip
Town park, and that this calamity has occurred because of the
greed and avarice of at least one unscrupulous contractor seeking
to make money by illegally disposing of toxic waste, avoiding the
significantly higher cost of safe disposal," Spota said at a news
conference in Hauppauge.

Spota declined to name a contractor at the news conference but
said the appearance of investigators at the corporate offices of
"Datre/Daytree" in Ronkonkoma was related to the dumping
investigation.

Officers were seen photographing heavy construction equipment and
trucks -- some of which bore the name "Datre" or "Town of Islip
Contractor" -- and searching the offices.

Attempts to reach a Datre spokesman were unsuccessful.

Spota's announcement came the same day town officials announced
that Joseph Montuori, the Islip Town parks commissioner, had been
forced to resign as a result of the probe.

The dumping appeared to have begun after a local church, Iglesia
de Jesucristo Palabra Miel, asked the town for permission to fix
holes in the soccer fields, Spota said. Congregants contributed
their "hard-earned money" and labor but ran out of resources to
complete the project, he said, then sought modest donations of
soil to finish renovations.

Unidentified individuals "convinced the church they'd bring in
some soil to help," Spota said. "In reality, those individuals saw
an opportunity to conduct illegal dumping."

The park's two soccer fields were raised 3 feet from the original
grade, and an adjacent sump area, which had been 25 feet deep, was
filled in, he said. The debris at the park measured an estimated
32,000 tons -- some of it from New York City, some from Long
Island, prosecutors said.

Potential health risks

"All of this was done with careless disregard for the potential
risk to the health and well-being of people who used the park, as
well as those driving the truckloads in and out of the park itself
. . ." Spota said. "When this type of debris is crushed by heavy
equipment or subjected to cutting and grinding by machinery, it
becomes subject to strict environmental regulation for disposal
because of the threat of fine asbestos particles, which can become
airborne and then are highly hazardous."

Church members witnessed truckloads of fill arriving that
contained chunks of broken debris and pleaded with the dumpers to
stop, complaining repeatedly to town employees, "who insisted
everything was all right," Spota said.

Two prosecutors have been assigned to the case: one from the
economic crime bureau who will handle the environmental
investigation side of the case and another from the government
corruption bureau. "We want to find out who, if anybody in town
knew there was illegal dumping," Spota said.

Glenn Neuschwender, president of Enviroscience Consultants, said
the EPA defines material as "asbestos-containing" if the
concentration is greater than 1 percent. The Ronkonkoma firm will
carry out the sampling for the district attorney's office, sources
said.

The town board learned, during a meeting with Spota, that
"hazardous construction and demolition debris and materials" had
been found at the park, Islip Town Councilman Anthony Senft said.

"This debris was placed illegally without the permission of the
Town of Islip by one or more contractors who were hired by a local
community organization to construct soccer fields," Senft said at
a news conference outside the park's locked gates.

Senft said permits had been issued by the town's planning
department and that "regular inspections" were done by Town of
Islip personnel.

At the Islip Town Board meeting, the board unanimously appointed
Thomas Owens, Islip's commissioner for public works, to head
Islip's parks department. The move came hours after Montuori was
forced to resign.

"The town conducted its own internal review," Senft said. "As a
result, we sought and successfully received the resignation of the
commissioner of our parks department, and we anticipate additional
changes as our internal investigation continues."

Montuori and his executive assistant, Brett Robinson, were
questioned by the district attorney's office for as long as six
hours, sources said.

Montuori, appointed by the town board in January 2012, did not
respond to a request for comment. Robinson still holds his town
position, officials said.

The dumping began as early as last June, and on March 24
investigators observed 48 truckloads dumped at the park, Spota
said. Previously, mounds of soil filled with rebar were cleared by
the town in late January after complaints were lodged by area
residents.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation concluded the
debris-filled dirt cleared in January had been "stored" at the
park and was told by the town it was being removed.

No tickets were issued for this incident, as "the contractor
mistakenly believed it could store the debris on-site during the
winter months while working on a construction project," the DEC
said.

The park will be closed for an "indefinite" amount of time while
the investigation is conducted, Senft said, which will delay the
construction on the $1.5 million pool rehabilitation project that
was supposed to be completed by June.

Spota began investigating after the DEC received a complaint in
March of illegal dumping of construction and demolition material
in an undeveloped area of the park.

Residents angered

At the town board meeting, several residents voiced outrage at the
chain of events at the park. Nelsena Day, a member of Suffolk
County's chapter of New York Communities for Change, which has
been pressing the town to improve the facility and upgrade the
park and its swimming pool, said the nonprofit had gathered 150
signatures from community members demanding answers.

"When did you find out about the illegal dumping over there and
what is going on with it?," Day, of Brentwood, asked the board.
"If you don't care, just let us know and we'll find another
alternative. But our kids, they need a place where they can go to
play basketball, where they can learn to swim."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roof Ruins Business, Says Mechanic
---------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that an
asbestos sheet roof which has caused the temporary closure of two
businesses on Woolley Street in Dickson for over three months is
being replaced.  But the owner of CNS Transmission, who has been
locked out of his automotive workshop since January 23, says the
roof problems have all but ruined his business of 22 years.

The mechanic has commenced legal action against the owners of the
building, who were informed in 2008 by licensed asbestos inspector
Arthur Watson that the roof should be replaced.

Meanwhile, ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said his
inspectors were also investigating whether any of the parties,
including the owners of the building, had breached ACT
legislation.  If that were the case, they could face potential
prosecution and sizeable fines.

ACT WorkSafe issued a prohibition notice on the Woolley Street
property in late January after tests confirmed asbestos fibres
were falling from the ageing sheeting and into the CNS workshop as
well as Morris Bros automotive workshop and the food storage room
of Ruby's Restaurant.

The owners of Ruby's co-own the building and said they were
cooperating fully with WorkSafe in having the roof replaced.
But the mechanic said he had been locked out of his business for
three months without access to his equipment -- all of which
needed to be decontaminated of asbestos dust.  Two customer's cars
remain locked inside the workshop and contaminated with asbestos
dust -- with the owners being irate at being left without their
cars for three months.

"I just don't know what to tell them. The last few months have
been a nightmare," the mechanic said.

But more worrying than his financial issues were medical tests
which suggested his lungs were enlarged. He has been referred on
for further testings.

The mechanic contacted WorkSafe in January over the state of the
building after years of dealing with what he described as
excessive dust.  He had an asbestos assessment by Mr Watson in
2012, which confirmed asbestos dust was present in the workshop.
He informed his real estate agent who organised for some sealant
to be placed around a skylight.

But the dust problems persisted and when the mechanic called
WorkSafe in January, further testing confirmed asbestos dust in
other parts of the building.

WorkSafe said they had inspected work on the roof and it was being
done in a manner consistent with ACT legislation. The prohibition
notice would be lifted when the roof was completed and
decontamination of affected workshops had been completed.

A lawyer for the building's owners said the mechanic had not paid
rent for 12 months and his complaints should be seen in the
context of an ongoing dispute with the landlord over the rent. He
said the landlord had been ready to remediate the workshop six
weeks ago but had been frustrated through a lack of cooperation
with the mechanic -- who wanted independent testing done.  His
lease had since been terminated, and the lawyer said the property
would be remediated at the landlord's expense -- with the mechanic
able to collect his property as soon as it was completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Case Settles Following Bid to Vacate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle and Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record,
reported that two weeks after a lawyer representing the widow of a
mesothelioma victim sought to move forward with a punitive damages
claim on behalf of his client despite a rule change that deferred
such claims in asbestos actions, a settlement was reached.

Attorney Michael C. Mudd, of Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French &
Mudd near St. Louis, Mo., filed a motion on April 17 at
Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court requesting a judge specially
vacate General Court Regulation No. 2013-01 as to the deferral of
punitive damages claims in the case and allow the submission of
the claims and supporting evidence to the jury. On April 29, court
records show that the matter had been settled for an undisclosed
amount.

Mudd represents Rosemary T. Checho, wife of the late Thomas N.
Checho, who died in September 2012, just under a year after he was
diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma.  The plaintiff
alleged her husband contracted the asbestos-related cancer as a
result of his 35-year-plus career as an operator of hot metal
typesetting machines and through other means.

Mudd took issue with the fact that while punitive damages were
historically deferred in Philadelphia asbestos cases per the
special rule, the arrangement was predicated upon reverse
bifurcated trials, which is where damages are assessed in a first
phase, and liability is determined in a second.

Reverse bifurcation, however, is no longer the practice in
asbestos trials at Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court.

Back in late 2011, Judge John W. Herron, the administrative judge
of the trial division, announced the rules change, which also did
away with the practice of consolidating asbestos cases; such cases
are now tried individually and "straight through."

In his filing, Mudd, the plaintiff's attorney, wrote, "Since
asbestos trials in Philadelphia are no longer reverse bifurcated,
the rationale for the deferral of punitive damages claims no
longer exists."

Nevertheless, Mudd noted, punitive damages claims continued to be
deferred under the court's Feb. 7, 2013 general court regulation.

A similar issue came up in New York early last month, when State
Supreme Court Justice Sherry Klein Heitler allowed plaintiffs to
file for punitive damages in the New York City Asbestos Litigation
(NYCAL) docket.

Heitler wrote in her ruling, ""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. 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 to the motion said that allowing punitive damages will
only hurt future victims as plaintiffs deplete funds that should
help those injured from asbestos. They also said non-deferral will
repeatedly punish companies for the same conduct.

The issue of deferring punitive damages is a long-standing one in
asbestos litigation. In 2012, members of national and state
organizations, including the Pennsylvania Business Council,
Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association and the Chamber of Commerce co-signed a
position paper endorsing the continued deferral.

"The financial viability of remaining solvent defendants continues
to be threatened both by the enormity of the litigation and the
challenging economy," the paper states. "It would be particularly
unwise now for the Court to reintroduce punitive damages to
augment economic pressures on employers and raise the specter that
future claimants may be left without timely or adequate
recoveries."

The opinion goes on to state that the point of large punitive
awards has been received loud and clear by business-owners. The
goal of damages as a deterrent has been met long ago as more than
100 companies have gone into bankruptcy from asbestos litigation.

In the Checho case, Mudd wrote that under present regulations, if
a plaintiff has presented facts from which a jury might reasonably
conclude that the preponderance of the evidence establishes
outrageous conduct by a defendant, "then the punitive damages
claim should be submitted to the jury."

Mudd said Checho, his client, would introduce evidence and elicit
testimony that might have shown "willful, wanton and/or reckless
conduct" on behalf of the defendants, especially those tied to the
hot metal typesetting machines that the plaintiff's late husband
worked with.

Failure to partially vacate the portion of the general court
regulation deferring punitive damages claims in asbestos cases for
Checho's case would prevent the jury's consideration of such
claims and would severely prejudice "substantial constitutional
rights of Plaintiff," Mudd wrote.

"Preventing Plaintiff from presenting decedent's punitive damages
claim to the jury is a violation of her right to due process of
law," Mudd wrote.

The attorney also maintained that the deferral of punitive damages
also violates Article I, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, which prohibits limitations on damages except in
workers' compensation cases.

Herron's February 2013 regulation stated that all punitive damages
claims in asbestos cases shall be deferred, and could only be
litigated in pharmaceutical mass tort cases provided that the
coordinating judge, following appropriate motion practice by
defense counsel at least 60 days in advance of trial, rules that
there are sufficient "requisite proofs" to support the claim going
to trial.

With the Checho case settled out of court, a decision on the
motion will not be made, leaving the deferral rule in tact.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Safety Upgrade for Fire Station
------------------------------------------------------
The Sunshine Coast Daily reported that the fire station in Gympie,
Queensland, Australia, has shifted for the time being, to allow a
major asbestos safety upgrade.  Contractors said they had already
removed asbestos sheeting from ceilings, walls and other parts of
the fire station structure, built in 1940.  They will press on
with the task of removing vinyl tiles and ensuring all loose
asbestos dust is removed from the building.

Director of the Pomona firm Precise Contracting Pty Ltd, Ben
Stevens, said extensive safety systems were being installed in
preparation for the effort, including fans and filters to remove
asbestos fibres from air and water used in the clean-up operation.

Queensland Fire and Emergency Service area commander Rob Frey said
the project aimed to ensure the continued safety of fire and
emergency crews at the station.

"Sufficient money has come up to allow us to ensure the absolute
safety of fire fighters in the long term," Mr Frey said.

During the four weeks the project will take to complete, Gympie
Fire Station has taken up new quarters at the former Forestry
Department workshop building in Fraser Rd.

"It's been a large task to fully relocate a 24/7 operational fire
station," he said, adding that when the job is done, he will be
responsible for the equally large task of moving the whole
operation back in.

He said the service had been glad to find suitable alternative
accommodation for the service.

Mr Stevens said decontamination units in use today would safely
remove all loose asbestos as the floors of the station are
refurbished, before being sprayed with a PVA seal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland School Shut Down Over Fibro Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Manning, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that
a primary school in Auckland, New Zealand, has been shut down by
its board of trustees due to an asbestos risk.  The decision to
close Bayfield School in Herne Bay was made to mitigate the risk
of asbestos dust from a nearby building site where demolition and
asbestos removal work was being carried out.

The decision was made by its board of trustees following meetings
with the school's principal Sheryl Fletcher, the Ministry of
Education, project contractors and Work Safe NZ -- the
organisation responsible for health and safety on the building
works.

In a statement, school representatives said in those meetings, the
board sought assurance from the project team that health and
safety issues associated with the agreed project plan for the
removal of asbestos were being adequately dealt with.

The ministry was the contract counterparty on the work and the
board's role was that of an observer, the statement said.

"To date we have been satisfied with the process being applied but
during the course of today we have become increasingly concerned
with the position.

"This concern has been borne out by a number of tests carried out
that indicated the possibility that asbestos dust exists outside
the fenced area of works."

Testing by Work Safe NZ last night confirmed asbestos within the
fenced area, however further testing was needed to confirm that
the area outside the fences was asbestos-free.  That testing is
due to be carried out, and while it may ultimately show that the
site was safe, board representatives stated they were not
satisfied with the school remaining open until that could be
proven.

It was likely the school would be closed, school representatives
said.

A meeting with parents to discuss the issue was being planned.
Board members were due to meet with ministry representatives this
morning to obtain health and safety information that could be
circulated to parents.

Bayfield School is a decile 10 school with around 380 Year 1 to
Year 6 students.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tilly Baily Sets Helpline for Fibro Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly Bailey & Irvine Solicitors has introduced a dedicated
helpline supporting individuals who believe they may have a claim
for an asbestos-related condition.  The support service is
launched in response to the increased volume of enquiries relating
to this potentially devastating diagnosis.

Mesothelioma is a form of cancer often related to exposure to
asbestos materials.  Frequently victims have worked in heavy
industry such as shipbuilding or construction.  The problem many
potential claimants have had is the issue of 'causation' or in
other words the specific link between the place of work, exposure
and resultant diagnosis.  This issue is made worse by the latent
nature of mesothelioma, which can take as long as 40 to 50 years
to develop to a point where it can be diagnosed.  After such long
periods many of the original employers have gone out of business.

A newly announced fund aims to address any difficulties around
establishing valid claims by providing support for legal fees and
a more rapid response to such enquiries.  The Government has
announced that the fund totals œ380 million and has been set aside
to compensate victims, many of whom worked in heavy industry here
in the North East.

The Minister of State for Work & Pensions, Mike Penning, set out
the Government's position.  He said: "After hard negotiations with
the insurance industry, I'm pleased to say that from this month
anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma since July 2012 will be able to
apply for compensation worth up to GBP123,000."

It has also been agreed that the families of loved ones who have
already passed as a result of the disease will still be able to
claim on their behalf.

John Hall -- JHall@tbilaw.co.uk -- Managing Partner at Tilly
Bailey & Irvine Solicitors, confirmed that the introduction of the
Asbestos Support Line was a natural step to support local families
who were struggling to take their cases forward or worried they
may not have valid claims.  He commented: "Over the years we've
helped an increasing number of families at what is often a very
distressing time.  The establishment of this free support line
aims to reduce the stress for local people who want
straightforward answers and advice.  There is also no cost to be
borne directly by the claimants as the Government has introduced a
fund which takes care of legal fees."

John Hall continued: "I would encourage anyone who thinks they or
a family member may be suffering, or had suffered from an asbestos
related condition, to contact us without delay.  We can quickly
put the wheels in motion to establish the strength of any claim
and progress the matter towards compensation."

Potential claimants can contact the dedicated line by calling
Tilly Bailey & Irvine on 0333 444 4422 and quoting 'Asbestos
Claim' or by sending a text to 80010 quoting 'tbi'.

John Hall heads up the Personal Injury department at Tilly Bailey
& Irvine Solicitors, having specialised in this field for more
than 30 years.

Tilly Bailey & Irvine Solicitors' team has extensive experience in
claims for industrial related injuries and diseases.  The firm is
accredited by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL),
and has experience in bringing claims which date back many years,
as well as claims against companies which are no longer trading,
have changed name or have been bought out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Pipe, Bricks Halt Troy Fibro Job
---------------------------------------------------------
CBS6Albany.com reported that a city planner in Troy, New York,
says asbestos abatement on two old buildings may begin again under
certain conditions set by the NY Department of Labor after the
discovery of an asbestos-laden pipe about a hundred yards away
from the buildings.

Andrew Kreshik is an assistant city planner working with the Troy
Local Development Corporation, the group that owns and has plans
to redevelop the former King Fuels site on Water Street, almost in
the shadow of the Menands bridge. He says someone placed the pipe
near a pile of debris from a recent demolition and he has no idea
where it came from. Two state agencies and the EPA are
investigating. A NYDEC spokesman said investigators would not
comment on the probe. According to Kreshik, a worker on the site
notified the state that there was "uncontrolled" asbestos on the
site and that asbestos was buried there. That evidently led to the
NY Department of Labor ordering a suspension of abatement and
demolition on the site.

Dr. David Carpenter, a public health physician at UAlbany, says
buried asbestos would not pose a public health threat and would be
a risk only to the worker who was burying it. Asbestos could be
seen dangling from a pipe, only partially encapsulated by tar
paper.

The site is a brownfield that is scheduled for multi-million
dollar clean-up to be handled by National Grid. Kreshik said the
Department of Labor would allow work to continue on the remaining
two buildings that are to be demolished as long the LDC's air-
monitoring firm worked in a prescribed method and that no other
asbestos on the site is disturbed. The site is seen as holding
potential for attracting more comapnies and industrial development
to Troy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Second Fibro Exposure Case Denied Remand
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Louisiana federal court has retained jurisdiction in a
woman's secondary exposure asbestos lawsuit, arguing it is
"perfectly capable" of handling complex questions of state law and
denying requests to remand.

Judge Carl J. Barbier, of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, filed the April 24 order declining
to remand the case to state court.

Plaintiff Sally Gros Vedros, who died from mesothelioma,
originally filed the asbestos lawsuit more than four years ago,
alleging secondary exposure. After her death, her children joined
the suit as plaintiffs.  They allege Alton Gros, Vedros' father,
wored at Avondale as a welder from 1943 to 1976. Vedros argued
that she spent several years washing her father's work clothes,
allegedly resulting in Vedlros' secondary exposure to asbestos.

Vedros, herself, also worked at Avondale from 1960 to 1963 in the
purchase department. She alleges her work also directly exposed
her to asbestos.  Vedros named numerous defendants in her original
lawsuit. Westinghouse, Foster-Wheeler and General Electric removed
the case to federal court based on the federal officer defense.

Then in August 2011, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of
the Multidistrict Litigation.

While in the MDL, Vedros' family moved to remand the case to state
court, which was denied. The MDL court ruled that federal
jurisdiction was satisfied because the requirements of the federal
officer removal statute was met.

By February 2013, the case was eventually remanded from the MDL to
the Eastern District of Louisiana.

While in this court, Barbier wrote that the parties have undergone
extensive discovery, including multiple depositions and expert
reports -- filing over 300 documents in federal court.  He added
that no further discovery will be allowed without express
permission of the court.

In addition to the extensive discovery and filed documents, the
court has ruled on 18 motions for summary judgment.

Due to the extensive action in the case, Barbier wrote that the
case is "ripe for trial."

The court later dismissed all claims against General Electric and
Foster-Wheeler, as well as claims against Westinghouse alleging it
supplied turbines to Avondale. As a result of their dismissal, the
plaintiffs responded by filing an instant motion to remand.

In their motion to remand, the plaintiffs argue federal
jurisdiction no longer exists because the claims against the
defendants that removed the case have all been dismissed.

They also argue that the court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims because the
legal issues in this case, including issues of solidary liability
and virile shares, involve complex questions of state law.

However, defendants Amchem, Westinghouse (the remaining claims),
the Acondale Interests, Avondale and Continental Insurance Company
counter the plaintiffs argument, claiming the court has already
expended substantial judicial resources and the case is ripe for
trial, the order states.  The defendants also point out that the
virile share liability is not a novel or complex issue that
requires state court adjudication

Barbier wrote that the general rule provides that where federal
claims are dismiss before trial, a federal court should also
dismiss pendent state claims. He added that the rule "'is neither
absolute nor automatic.'"

Therefore, Barbier explained, the federal court has discretion to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

In order for the court to determine whether or not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, it must balance "'judicial economy,
convenience, fairness and comity,'" Barbier stated.

Barbier wrote that the there are no novel or complex issues of
state law in the case at hand that would require the court to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

"The court is perfectly capable of adjudicating issues involving
solidary liability and virile shares," he added.

"Additionally, this case is similar to several other cases where
district courts in this circuit have properly exercised
supplemental jurisdiction where the matters have been pending in
federal court for several years, extensive discovery has occurred
and numerous documents have been filed, discovery is closed, the
case is ripe for trial, there are no novel or overly complex
issues of state law, and the district court has already expended
significant judicial resources and decided multiple dispositive
motions," Barbier continued.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grammar School Admits Fibro Health Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
John Cassidy, writing for Belfast Telegraph, reported that a
Northern Ireland grammar school has pleaded guilty to health and
safety breaches relating to its management of asbestos.

Jill Keery appeared at Belfast Crown Court as an appointed
representative on behalf of the school board of governors of
Bloomfield Collegiate.  She pleaded guilty to failing to manage
asbestos in non-domestic premises by not having a suitable
asbestos survey carried out on the preparatory school housed
within the grounds of the Astoria Gardens premises in east
Belfast.

The appointed representative also pleaded guilty to failing to
ensure that non-employees were not exposed to the risks of
asbestosis.  The offences were committed between June 1, 2011 and
May 21, 2012 under the Health and Safety at Work (Northern
Ireland) Order 1978.

No plea was entered on the third count of failing to ensure the
health and safety of all employees.

Defence barrister Jonpaul Shields told Belfast Recorder Judge
David McFarland that a decision would be made, on how to proceed
on the third charge. As a result, Judge McFarland adjourned
sentencing.

The private primary school at Bloomfield Collegiate was built in
the late 1960s and was used up until the summer of 2011.

However, it was also used as an after-schools facility, a pre-
school for children under primary age and a kindergarten.

The building was used regularly by girls from the main school
along with teachers, cleaners and administration staff. Since
April 1, 2004, following the introduction of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order, there has been a
duty on those who own or control premises to carry out a survey to
identify if any asbestos materials are present.

However, it wasn't until May 21, 2012 that the school carried out
a survey on the preparatory school which uncovered asbestos-
containing materials.  Four days later the Health and Safety
Executive's scientific services carried out a survey and found
high levels of asbestos fibres in the air. They also found
asbestos debris in the back of some cupboards.  The survey found
that staff, contractors and children using the building were at
risk of exposure to the asbestos.

Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK.  When fibres are inhaled they can cause serious diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Inspectors Plead Guilty to Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fairbanks, writing for The Buffalo News, reported that they
were supposed to be the watchdogs, the final word on whether
asbestos was properly removed from the Kensington Heights housing
complex, in New York.  Instead, they allowed cancer-causing
material to escape into the air.

Two City Hall inspectors, William Manuszewski and Donald
Grzebielucha, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor crimes in connection
with the botched asbestos-removal effort at the vacant East Side
development.

A third, Theodore Lehmann, who retired from the state Department
of Labor, is expected to follow suit.  If that happens, it would
mark an end to the government's three-year-old prosecution of
companies and individuals involved in the cleanup of Kensington
Heights, a symbol of decay and decline for three decades.

"The defendants did inspections at the buildings," Assistant U.S.
Attorney Aaron J. Mango said of Manuszewski and Grzebielucha, "and
during those inspections, asbestos material was released into the
air."

The two inspectors, as part of their plea deals, stopped well
short of admitting they falsified records, the allegation in the
government's 2011 indictment. They pleaded guilty instead to
negligent endangerment under the Clean Air Act and admitted
putting other people at risk because of their actions.

The plea deals, reached just days before they went on trial before
U.S. District Richard J. Arcara, mean Manuszewski and Grzebielucha
get misdemeanor, not felony, convictions.

In addition, Manuszewski will be able to keep his job with the
city, according to defense lawyer Michael J. Stachowski.
Grzebielucha is retired.

Stachowski said his client weighed the risks and benefits of going
to trial versus taking a plea and in the end decided it was best
to acknowledge that he and City Hall were partly to blame for the
problems at Kensington Heights.

"He was untrained and ill-equipped," Stachowski said of
Manuszewski.

If Lehmann also pleads guilty -- his lawyer, Mark S. Carney, said
he intends to take a plea deal -- it would end a criminal case
that rocked the neighborhood around the housing complex.

When prosecutors announced their indictment of nine individuals
and two companies connected to the asbestos-removal project,
residents who live and work around the site raised questions about
the potential health effects of the bungled asbestos project.

The 17-acre complex, located behind Erie County Medical Center, is
also near three schools and a park frequently used by youth sports
teams.  Air samples from the neighborhood later indicated that
asbestos levels inside the complex's six towers exceeded federal
standards but levels outside the complex did not.

Manuszewski and Grzebielucha became the seventh and eighth
defendants and the first inspectors to plead guilty in the three-
year-old case. The other plea deals involved two asbestos-removal
contractors and four private compliance monitors.

The grand jury indictment also charged two companies, Johnson
Contracting of Buffalo and JMD Environmental Inc. of Grand Island,
but those charges were dropped when the companies went out of
business.

Johnson was hired to remove and dispose of the estimated 63,000
square feet of asbestos in each of the six towers, and JMD was
hired to monitor their work.

Ernest Johnson, president of the asbestos-removal company,
recently pleaded guilty and, as part of his plea deal, admitted
his role in the bungled project. Among other things, his workers
dumped asbestos down holes cut in the floors.

The initial allegations against the two city inspectors involved
falsifying inspection reports from the Fillmore Avenue
development.

Manuszewski, for example, was accused of using his final
inspection reports to claim that asbestos work in five of the
complex's six buildings had been completed when, in fact, he knew
it had not been finished.

Manuszewski and Grzebielucha will be sentenced by Arcara on
Aug. 18.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Offers Inside Look at Fibro Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that the trusts
lawyers set up to pay the asbestos claims of bankrupt companies
are platforms for "institutionalized fraud," a former plaintiff
lawyer says, thanks to lax rules that allow claimants and their
relatives to obtain money without firm evidence they were ever
actually exposed to asbestos. With lists of work sites and
asbestos product names conveniently provided online and no process
for verifying most reports of exposure, attorney Thomas M. Wilson
says, the trusts are virtual factories for processing claims that
wouldn't pass muster in court.

"When you're the one drafting the trust documents, you draft it so
you and anyone else are able to take advantage of the trust
process," Wilson told me.

There's nothing in Wilson's May 7 article in Mealey's Litigation
Report (available online for $25) that would surprise a lawyer
involved on either side of asbestos litigation. What's surprising
is the author, a former partner with the Cleveland plaintiff firm
of Kelley & Ferraro who represented asbestos plaintiffs from 1999
to 2013 and helped set up some of the trusts he now accuses of
facilitating fraud.

Wilson is now with Wargo & Wargo, a Berea, Ohio firm that does no
asbestos work. "I have no dog in this fight any more," the
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law graduate told me.

And despite the use of the inflammatory 'F' word, Wilson says he
isn't accusing anybody of breaking the law.

"That's the basis of the article -- there's nothing improper being
done, from any point of view," he said. "The people who are
ultimately profiting from the bankruptcy trusts, properly, are the
people who made them."

Readers might disagree about the "proper" part after reading how
easily the trusts are gamed. In details Wilson said are entirely
from public materials, the former asbestos plaintiff lawyer
explains how the trusts are designed to be tapped by claimants
with little evidence of exposure. That they've done, to the tune
of more than $15 billion so far, as lawyers drive manufacturers
into bankruptcy with asbestos lawsuits and then draft the
documents governing the trusts that will pay their claims.

From the article:

Plaintiff asbestos lawyers then use the millions of dollars of
fees obtained from the system they were instrumental in building,
to run countless advertisements designed to obtain more clients so
that they can submit more claims and obtain more fees. Thus,
institutionalized fraud, as built into the system, allows the
system to perpetuate itself.

Here's how the fraud is perpetuated:

Job site/exposure lists. The USG Asbestos Trust, set up to pay
U.S. Gypsum claims, provides a helpful "Approved Site List"
identifying job sites where workers may have been exposed to
asbestos. The website also provides a "Significant Occupational
Exposure Rating," listing jobs like Insulator, Laborer and
Boilermaker Helper, that are presumed to have led to asbestos
exposure. Combine the two, Wilson says, and no further evidence is
needed. Claimants don't have to prove they touched any specific
products, worked with them, or even worked inside a building where
they were present.

Easy claim forms. While the plaintiff lawyers guarding the trusts
require their clients to file a form specifically claiming they
were exposed to that company's products, it's not a terribly
demanding task. The claim forms must be signed, but they aren't
affidavits and don't meet state or federal evidence standards. In
fact, if the information matches what's in an attorney's file then
it is "accurate," even if incorrect. The whole process resembles
the robosigning scandal at mortgage companies: Once lawyers sign
an electronic filing form, Wilson says, information can be
automatically merged into the claim forms "which can then be bulk
uploaded, by the thousands."

No cross-checking. While many states allow courts to consider the
relative liability of a company if the plaintiff was exposed to
other, more dangerous asbestos products, lawyers have dropped that
from trust documents. Some trusts specifically advise claimants
that they don't want information about exposure to other products,
meaning plaintiffs can tap multiple trusts with conflicting
stories about how they think they got sick without worrying about
getting caught.

Lax exposure affidavits. Family members can file these on behalf
of a deceased claimant, without any personal knowledge of the
facts. The Plibrico trust, for example, allows family members to
make "factual assertions" about someone else's work history and
exposure that wouldn't be admitted in any court.

Product lists. A claimant theoretically should be able to identify
the product he says made him sick. The trusts make this easier by
providing lists of asbestos-containing products on their websits,
including the years they were manufactured. That makes it easy to
provide accurate documentation of exposure without actually
remembering anything.

These articles typically generate outraged comments from plaintiff
lawyers who accuse me of being an "industry stooge" or worse. In
this case, the material comes from one of their own. And the
effect of all this gamesmanship is to deplete the trusts of assets
that could be used to pay future claimants. As with most large
settlements, the asbestos trusts were set up to compensate lawyers
and their clients in the here and now, with less concern for
future claimants and their lawyers. The companies, of course, also
get a benefit by capping their liability and moving on. By putting
their assets in the hands of plaintiff lawyers with an inherent
conflict of interest with future claimants, they set the stage for
fraud.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Deceased Plumber Awarded $.65MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Write County, Iowa, jury has awarded a deceased asbestos
victim's family $6.5 million, including punitive damages.

The jury rendered its verdict on April 25 in favor of plaintiffs
Shari and Ricky Kinseth, on behalf of Larry Kinseth's estate,
deceased, in the Iowa District Court for Wright County. Judge
Stephen P. Carroll presided over the case.

Weil-McLain was the only remaining defendant at the time of trial
and was found 25 percent liable.

"Iowa applies the proportionate credit rule," Carroll wrote,
"under which the plaintiffs' recovery for compensatory damages
against the non-settling defendant is reduced by the percentage of
fault attributed to the settling companies."

According to the complaint filed Jan. 7, 2008, Larry Kinseth
worked with the family's plumbing business when he worked with
asbestos-containing boilers that were manufactured and sold by
Weil-McClain.

According to the judgment entered on May 2, the award can be
broken down as follows:

   -- Pre-Death Spousal Consortium: $500,000
   -- Pre-Death Medical Expense: $500,000
   -- Pre-Death Physical and Mental Pain and Suffering: $2,000,000
   -- Pre-Death Loss of Full Mind and Body: $500,000
   -- Post-Death Loss of Spousal Consortium: $500,000
   -- The jury also awarded $2,500,000 in punitive damages

Regarding punitive damages, Carroll stated that because the jury
indicated Weil-McLain's conduct "was not specifically directed at"
Kinseth, the award must be divided between the Larry Kinseth
Estate and the Iowa Civil Reparations Fund.

As a result, Shari Kinseth will recover $125,000 in compensatory
damages from Weil-McLain, with interest beginning in Jan. 2008.

The estate of Larry Kinseth will recover $875,000 in compensatory
damages from Weil-McLain, with interest beginning from the date of
the judgment filing.

As for punitive damages, Carroll wrote that after all applicable
costs and fees are paid, an amount not to exceed 25 percent of the
punitive damage award may be awarded to the Estate of Larry
Kinseth, with the remainder of the award to be paid into the Iowa
Civil Reparations Trust.  The allocation of punitive damages will
be made by an order at a later date after interested parties have
had an opportunity to be heard, he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hunt for Serial Fibro Dumper Lake Macquarie
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamieson Murphy, writing for Lakes Mail, reported that the City
Council in Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, is investigating a
possible serial asbestos dumper following a spate of dumpings in
bushland at Wyee.  Lakes Mail has chosen not to reveal the exact
location.

The council said it was making every effort to catch the offender
and to send a clear message that illegal dumping won't be
tolerated.

"Not only does rubbish dumping cause environmental damage and ruin
an area's appearance, it also imposes a high cost on ratepayers
for council to remove and legally dispose of the waste," a council
spokesperson said.

Last year the council received 762 service requests from the
community about illegal dumping on public land.  The clean-up cost
for the council was about $300,000, or close to $400 per dump.

Member for Lake Macquarie Greg Piper said the state government
needed to work closely with councils if it is to have a chance of
reining in illegal dumpers.

"Illegal dumping is very difficult to police - we can't put a CCTV
camera in every area of bushland in Lake Macquarie," Mr Piper
said.

"So the only tools we have to fight it are awareness campaigns,
public vigilance, and heavy penalties that hopefully provide a
deterrent."

On-the-spot penalties for the illegal disposal of asbestos now
range from $1500 to $125,000 for an individual.

For a corporation, the penalties range from $5000 up to $1
million.

"The state government created new offences and increased penalties
for illegal dumping last year with the express intention of
cracking down on illegal dumpers, but we need to see these
convictions being forcefully prosecuted.

"Illegal dumpers must know that if they are caught they will be
prosecuted, they will be heavily fined and they may well go to
jail.

"These people are guilty of very serious offences and they cannot
be let off lightly, as has been the case too often in the past."

Mr Piper said a public education campaign explaining the dangers
of asbestos dumping and the legal disposal options would also be
useful "particularly if it targeted contractors and small
businesses in the building industry".

Locals can actively help to reduce illegal dumping by reporting
dumping site locations and the vehicle registration details of
alleged offenders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Moriarty" House Cleared From Fibro
----------------------------------------------------
Alina Polianskaya, writing for Islington Tribune, reported that an
Archway, England, woman who claims to have suffered a five-year
ordeal over concerns about asbestos has been told that her home is
not a danger to her health.

Patricia Moriarty, who lives with her 25-year-old son who has
previously been diagnosed with cancer, claimed that no precautions
were put in place by Islington Council when drilling and rewiring
work was carried out on the property in 2009, despite asbestos
being found in the ceiling.  She said: "We were exposed to these
fibres, and I don't care if it was for a minute, an hour or a day,
although the drilling continued for a few days.

"The fact is, no protection was put in place to protect us from
dust."

Ms Moriarty was offered the house on the Hargrave Park Estate in
Archway in 1997 when her son was having chemotherapy.  She said
that if she had been warned about the asbestos fibres, she would
not have accepted it.

Despite not being on the asbestos risk register, Ms Moriarty, who
is a nursery nurse, first had concerns about the safety of her
home when she found out in 2010 that the material was present in
her neighbour's property.  She says a council surveyor later
confirmed the presence of the potentially toxic substance in the
Artex ceiling.

Ms Moriarty claims that her concerns were dismissed when she
contacted the council, as well as MP Jeremy Corbyn.

Ms Moriarty received a reply from Mr Corbyn stating that advice
from the Health and Safety Executive suggested that her health had
not been compromised and that the council had no case to answer.
The letter stated that HSE guidelines had been followed.

A council spokesman said: "The advice of the experts is that the
ceiling decoration presents no risk to the occupants.

"The HSE have found Islington Council's asbestos management
service satisfactory."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney Denies Claims Against Watertown Man
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Kelly, Watertown Daily Times, reported that the attorney for
a Watertown, Massachusetts, contractor indicted on allegations
that he unlawfully removed asbestos from an Academy Street
property maintains that his client wasn't in the state at the time
the acts are alleged to have occurred and that he never authorized
anyone to do anything illegal.

Aaron A. Netto, 36, of 23997 County Route 159, was indicted in
Jefferson County Court on two counts of second-degree reckless
endangerment and single counts of third-degree endangering public
health, safety or the environment, second-degree making an
apparently false sworn statement and tampering with physical
evidence.

The indictment charges that Mr. Netto knowingly conducted an
illegal asbestos abatement at 222 Academy St.

The abatement process released more than 1,000 pounds of friable
and nonfriable materials containing asbestos -- a hazardous
substance -- into the environment, potentially endangering workers
and neighbors.

His attorney, Eric T. Swartz, Watertown, claims the charges are
part of a vendetta against Mr. Netto owing to an earlier case
involving property stolen from several construction sites.
Mr. Netto initially was indicted on felony stolen property
charges, but he pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts last
September.

He was sentenced to three years' probation and forced to resign
from his position as a state corrections officer. Mr. Netto is
also a former state Department of Environmental Conservation
officer.

"Law enforcement has been obsessed with him since last year," Mr.
Swartz said. "They wanted to put him away."

Mr. Swartz said the felony stolen property charges were based on
the claimed value of the items that Mr. Netto held. But when the
items were appraised properly, they had a value far below what was
initially claimed.

"When it came down to crunch time, law enforcement couldn't even
do the math," Mr. Swartz said. "The case wasn't there."

Mr. Swartz said that after the stolen property case was thrown
out, law enforcement officers "started staking out his rental
properties."

State police, aided by the state Bureau of Environmental Crimes
Investigations, charged Mr. Netto with the illegal abatement in
mid-November. The indictment alleged that Mr. Netto conducted the
abatement between Oct. 4 and 9.

"He was definitely not even in the city between Oct. 4 and
Oct. 9," Mr. Swartz said. "He was in Idaho. And there was no
testimony before the grand jury that he directed anybody to
endanger public health, safety or the environment."

Mr. Swartz also disputes the amount of friable and nonfriable
asbestos that allegedly was released. He says that while
prosecutors claim more than 1,000 pounds of material were
released, there was no testimony to prove it.

Mr. Swartz contends that illegal asbestos abatement cases are
typically handled by the state DEC as a civil matter. Parties
usually reach a consent agreement that results in fines for the
violator, but no criminal charges.

"I don't believe anyone in the history of Jefferson County has
ever been indicted in an asbestos abatement case," Mr. Swartz
said. "It's a joke. They just won't leave him alone. It's
something no one on earth would ever be charged with besides him."
Assistant District Attorney Patricia L. Dzuiba, who is prosecuting
the case, said she believes the arrest was legitimate.

"We processed this felony matter as we do every felony matter,"
Ms. Dzuiba stated. "There is a process that we follow, and we have
followed it, and I will defer judgment to a jury of Mr. Netto's
peers."

According to Mr. Swartz, if Mr. Netto is convicted of the charges,
he could face a sentence ranging from five years' probation to 1-
1/3 to 4 years in prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure May Have Killed New Malden Man
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nazia Dewji, writing for This Is Local London, reported that a
retired serviceman in New Malden, England, may have died after
coming into contact with asbestos up to 50 years before, an
inquest has heard.

Raymond Greengrass, 68, of Beresford Road, died on October 28 last
year at Princess Alice Hospice from mesothelioma.  No family were
at the inquest at West London Coroner's Court.

Mr Greengrass's daughter wrote how her father believed the only
time he may have come in contact with asbestos was working for a
book supplier in Neasden as a teenager.  She said: "He used to
have to go down to the cellar and get the accounts."

The inquest heard smoker Mr Greengrass refused antibiotics and
preferred a symptom control treatment.  He went to accident and
emergency the day before he was admitted to the hospice, where he
died the same day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined After Workforce Exposed to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
PPConstructionSafety reported that Redwood Contractors Ltd has
been prosecuted for failing to highlight the known presence of
asbestos insulating board (AIB) at a Berkshire warehouse thereby
exposing a foreman and others to potential harm when the AID was
removed during refurbishment work.

The company was in possession of a detailed asbestos survey
clearly identifying the location of the asbestos wall panels
inside the building in Wokingham, Surrey. However, the survey was
not shared with the team on the ground.  When the foreman mistook
the AIB for lower risk material asbestos cement it was removed
without adequate control measures and protective equipment.

The communication breakdown was revealed when HSE investigated
contamination of the warehouse with asbestos in December 2011.

Reading Magistrates' Court heard that AIB should be removed by a
licensed asbestos contractor because of the risk of exposure to
asbestos dangerous fibres.

HSE established that the site foreman was not provided with
documentation or other information about the panels despite an
asbestos survey being completed two months prior to the work
starting.

Breakdowns in communication all too common

Redwood Contractors Ltd, of Battersea Rise, London, SW11, was
fined a total of GBP10,000 and ordered to pay GBP2,857 in costs
after pleading guilty to two separate breaches of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Karen Morris commented:

"It is disappointing that the foreman and others were needlessly
put at risk simply because the asbestos survey for the warehouse
was not supplied to the team on the ground, or the location of the
AIB relayed.

What is the point of having a suitable survey in hand if you
aren't going to act on it and share vital information with those
who need to know? Sadly, breakdowns in communication of this kind
are all too common, but that doesn't excuse Redwood Contractors
from failing to do more.

The company is guilty of a clear oversight that may have
compromised the future health and well-being of its workers.
Everyone knows that asbestos is a potential killer, and the onus
is on duty holders to implement proper control measures at all
times when dealing with asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Casa Grande Council to Vote on Grant in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Grande Dispatch reported that the first step in a long-range
city plan to extend Pinal Avenue, south past the railroad tracks
could soon be complete if the City Council in Casa Grande,
Arizona, approves using a state grant to remove asbestos from a
building.

The council is expected to vote on the grant in June.

The Pinal Avenue extension, a project Deputy City Manager Larry
Rains said has "been on the back burner for several years," has
been stymied by an old building at 419 W. Second St., the former
Raggedy Ann and Andy Day Care center.

Steven Turner, management analyst in the city manager's office,
said about $50,000 of a $70,876 state grant the city was recently
awarded would be used for asbestos abatement.  That amount would
pay for the initial asbestos building inspection, the actual
asbestos abatement and costs associated with necessary project
management and oversight, Turner said.

"Eventually that building is going to be torn down," Turner said.

The abatement would take about 10 days and is not expected to
disrupt traffic, Turner said.

The remaining $20,000 of the grant money would be used to remove
lead paint from an antique caboose the city plans to place in a
future railroad arts plaza.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Adds to Bell Vista Bridge Expense
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Stockman, writing for The Journal Gazette, reported that
rebuilding the Belle Vista bridge, in Bristol, United Kingdom,
will get slightly more expensive.

Allen County Highway Department Director Bill Hartman told the
county commissioners the two houses that will be demolished as
part of the project were found to have asbestos. Safely removing
the cancer-causing material will add $2,173 to the $688,781 cost
of the project.

The Belle Vista bridge crosses Fairfield Ditch, which floods
frequently. When that happens, the sewers in the neighborhood get
overwhelmed with stormwater and have to be pumped out, leading to
the city placing large, portable pumps on the street near the
bridge.

In addition to the pumps, the ditch sometimes floods over the
bridge itself, forcing the street to close entirely.

Hartman said the bridge replacement project will address many of
those problems: The two houses being removed flood frequently, and
one of them will be replaced with a parking pad where pumps can be
placed out of the way of traffic. The new bridge will be 3 feet
higher than the current structure, so it should not have to close
because of flooding.

"We know (flooding) is going to happen," Hartman said. "But now we
won't have to close the road."

Work is expected to begin in mid-June, he said, and be complete in
the fall.

In other business, commissioners voted unanimously to approve
changing the zoning on 152 acres off West Gump Road from
agricultural to planned single family residential. A developer
plans to build about 160 homes on the site of former Pony Town
campground.

Commissioners also voted unanimously for the same zoning change
for 22 acres off Covington Road for a 60-lot subdivision between
two others already in place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Plea Over Death of Hull Man Mark Payne
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Longhorn, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that the
devastated widow of a man who died from a debilitating industrial
illness is appealing for help finding information about her
husband's contact with asbestos.

Mark Payne, of Bransholme, England, died aged 68, just a few weeks
before his 69th birthday and his 50th wedding anniversary, which
he was due to celebrate with his wife Barbara.

Mr Payne had battled mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the
lungs caused by asbestos exposure, for just five months before his
death in March last year.

Now his widow is calling on ex-colleagues to help her get answers.

She said: "Seeing Mark's condition deteriorate so badly due to
mesothelioma has been absolutely heartbreaking for me and my
daughters, something I don't think we will ever get over.

"He used to be so fit and strong but once the illness took hold he
struggled to breathe, he lost his appetite and he couldn't sleep.
He used to also love growing herbs in the garden, which had even
appeared on Gardeners' World, so he was devastated when he
couldn't maintain it anymore."

The father-of-two and grandfather-of-one is said to have believed
his condition was caused by exposure to asbestos, while working as
an apprentice electrician at Blackburn Aircraft Limited, now known
as BAE Systems, at Brough, and at CE Barnes, in Durham Street,
east Hull, where he was also an electrician.

An inquest into his death was held at Hull Coroner's Court in May,
where a verdict of industrial disease was recorded.

Mrs Payne said: "We used to go to Blackpool on holiday with
friends every year and we we're also looking forward to a trip to
the Lake District to celebrate our anniversary, but we had to
cancel both because he was so unwell.

"He was always such a huge support to me and helped me cope with
my own health problems and I miss him every day.

"He spoke about the conditions at Blackburn Aircraft Limited and
CE Barnes and recalled working alongside other tradesmen who used
asbestos. I just hope they can now help my legal team at Irwin
Mitchell confirm his recollection so I can finally honour his
memory and get the answers I deserve."

Mr Payne worked at Blackburn Aircraft Limited between 1959 and
1962 and is said to have believed he came into contact with
asbestos while refurbishing old machinery in a building workers
called the shed.  He also recalled coming into contact with
asbestos while working at electrical contracting firm CE Barnes
Limited, where he worked between 1962/63 and 1979.  He also
remembered carrying out electrical work on new housing
developments in Hull, where he said he worked alongside labourers
using asbestos to insulate the porches, soffits and gutters.

Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's Leeds office, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive and
incurable cancer which causes so much distress for victims like
Mark who worked in industries where asbestos was regularly used.

"We hope that Mark's former co-workers will come forward to help
answer the many questions his family has about his exposure as
well as what measures, if any, were in place to protect employees
like him."

A BAE Systems spokesman said: "We have received no contact from Mr
Payne's legal representatives and it would be inappropriate for us
to comment at this stage."

Anyone with information about the working conditions at Blackburn
Aircraft Limited and at CE Barnes is asked to contact Nicola
Handley at Irwin Mitchell's Leeds office by emailing
nicola.handley@irwinmitchell.com or calling 01132 206233.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped at Vale Park
-----------------------------------------------
Michelle Chow, writing for The Sentinel, reported that
investigators are appealing for help to trace two men suspected of
dumping asbestos at Vale Park, in Staffordshire, England.

Fifty kilograms of the hazardous waste was found on the car park
at the Lorne Street end of the ground.  Now environmental officers
at Stoke-on-Trent City Council want to trace a white Mercedes
Sprinter van which was caught on CCTV coming in and out of Vale
Park at the time of the incident.

The CCTV images show the van and then two men in high-visibility
yellow jackets appearing to tip the waste at the back of the car
park, which is just yards from a children's centre.

Police checks on the van -- with the registration number DE53 WOJ
-- revealed it had no registered keeper, insurance or MOT.

Investigator Dominic Gratty said: "Dumping large quantities of
asbestos in a public place is a serious offence. We are determined
to catch the people who did this, but we need the public's help to
enable us to track down this van.

"The car park was quite crowded at the time, and people may have
witnessed the incident or seen this van in or around North
Staffordshire in recent weeks.

"Fly-tipping is an environmental crime which costs city taxpayers
GBP21,000 a month to clean up.

"We intend to send the culprits a clear message that our city is
not a dumping ground for dangerous waste."

Council officers have only just released the CCTV images, despite
the asbestos being dumped just before 5.30pm on March 10.

Residents have voiced concerns about the broken asbestos sheeting
being found so close to their homes.

Thomas Mason, aged 82, of Hamil Road, Burslem, said: "It is
worrying to hear the waste was found so close to my house. The
offenders should go to prison if caught because it is really
dangerous to leave such hazardous material in an open area."
Thomas Urbanski, aged 24, of Hamil Road, added: "I was surprised
to hear such a large amount of asbestos was found in the car park
of the football ground.

"Anyone who is caught doing something like that should be severely
punished because everyone knows asbestos needs to be disposed of
correctly. It is irresponsible that the asbestos was dumped near
where people are living."

Anyone with information about the men or the van should call the
council's environmental crime unit on 01782 236778."

No-one from Port Vale was available for comment about the incident
last night.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Healthy Grandpa Misdiagnosed with Terminal Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Duell, writing for Daily Mail, reported that grandfather of
seven spent three years thinking he could die at any time -- after
being wrongly diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Hospital porter
Roger Mollison, 66, of Dundee, was warned he had just nine months
to live after tests appeared to show he had developed lethal
mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos.  He gave up his job
and began chemotherapy in the hope of surviving. And in the
following months he tried to make the most of the time he had left
by spending it with his children and grandchildren.

One of his biggest fears was not living long enough to see his son
get married. But he survived to attend the ceremony, and to see
two new grandchildren and two great-grandchildren born.  Then, in
March -- almost three years after the original diagnosis at
Ninewells Hospital in Dundee -- he found his 'cancer' of the lungs
was actually another non-life-threatening, asbestos-related
condition.

Mr Mollison, who is also a father of two, said: 'I've spent almost
three years fearing I'd die any time and my family have suffered
horribly. I prepared to not be around for much longer.

'And [I] went through the awful feelings that go with that. Then I
was shocked to the core when they told me the original lab results
were wrong and I'm still trying to come to terms with it.

'It is wonderful to know that I am not dying but I have lost all
confidence in doctors and don't know if I ever will regain it.'

Mr Mollison began suffering breathing problems several years ago.
He was admitted to Ninewells before being referred to a specialist
who performed a biopsy.  Suspected mesothelioma was diagnosed --
with exposure to asbestos in a previous job as an insulation
engineer cited as a probable reason.

Mr Mollison believed he was to become one of the 2,000 UK men
whose lives are claimed by the disease each year. Victims are
normally expected to live between six and 18 months.  He was even
visited by palliative care nurses who advised on how best to spend
what time he had left. He agreed to undergo chemotherapy, and
stunned staff in the oncology ward with his progress.

Mr Mollison said they labelled him 'their best patient' after
discovering he was regularly going cycling in between treatment
sessions.  The correct diagnosis only emerged after Mr Mollison
instructed his lawyers, Digby Brown, to prepare a claim for
compensation against the insurers of his former employers.  They
sent him for fresh tests after becoming suspicious about the
length of time he had lived since the diagnosis. The second
opinion confirmed Mr Mollison was 'unlikely to have mesothelioma'.

He said: 'When I turned up for treatment staff at the oncology
ward kept telling me I was their best patient.

'My disease had not progressed to the end stage they expected and
the truth only emerged when my lawyer questioned the diagnosis.'

His family say the ordeal of being told their husband, father and
grandfather had only months to live has had a 'horrendous' impact.

His wife Liz said: 'We are hugely relieved Roger is not
desperately ill but devastated about what we all went through.
Surely these hospital tests should always be checked and
rechecked.'

His solicitor Euan Love, of Digby Brown, said: 'The original
pathologist said Mr Mollinson had mesothelioma which is caused by
asbestos. But our independent pathologist's opinion says it is
unlikely he does.

'He has other asbestos related conditions not immediately life-
threatening. It has been extremely traumatic for him and indeed
his family.

'We are discussing ways to resolve his case and obtain
compensation for the asbestos-related conditions he does have and
for what he has had to endure since his original diagnosis.'

Mr Mollison admits he is bitter about having to give up his
hospital job after working there for six years.

He said: 'I loved my job and would have stayed on much longer.
However, the terminal diagnosis made me give it up because I had
so little time left to spend it with my family.

'My daughter, Lynsey, and son Neil, were heartbroken and struggled
to accept that I was dying.

'We now have to tell people that I no longer have this death
sentence and everyone is just as stunned as us. It is a huge
struggle to take it all but we have to move forward and cope.'

He has been supported throughout by Asbestos Action Tayside
charity.

An NHS Tayside spokesman said: 'Due to patient confidentiality, we
cannot comment on individual cases. We would encourage Mr Mollison
to contact us so we can look into his concerns further for him.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds of Homes Built on Toxic Land
------------------------------------------------------
Lizzie Edmonds, writing for Daily Mail, reported that hundreds of
homeowners have been told their GBP400,000 properties could have
been built on 'contaminated' land -- and it's not safe for their
children to play in the area.

Environment officers at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council have
warned residents of three streets in Paddock Wood, Kent, England,
they may be at risk.  They say 'potentially dangerous' chemicals
including asbestos and creosote could have seeped in to the
ground. The substances could have 'an impact on human health',
they added.

Residents of three streets, circled, in Paddock Wood, Kent have
been told their homes could have been built on contaminated land.

The area used to be a timber yard which built sheds and
greenhouses until the early 80s.

The area includes three streets of homes built more than 20 years
ago, including The Ridings, Dimmock Close and Le Temple Road.

Experts will now take soil samples from homes to check whether the
soil is 'toxic' - while residents have been told to ensure their
children don't play with soil in gardens.

Locals have been told to make sure anyone coming into contact with
soil should wash their hands and that pets should be 'prevented
from digging' in soil.

One local, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said she was
'furious' that hundreds of people have been exposed to the risk.

The 51-year-old, who asked not to be named, said: 'The first we
knew about it was when we got a letter through the door saying the
council needed to take soil samples.

'When I looked into it further I found out that the soil could be
full of chemicals.

'I've brought up three children here and they used to make mud
pies and help me do the gardening all the time.

'It beggars belief to think they could have been playing in mud
which is filled with poisons.'

Another mother-of-three Toni Williamson, 37, told her local paper,
the Kent and Sussex Courier: 'It terrified me when I got the
letter.

'It's horrible to think that my kids can't play in the garden
without being at risk.

'I feel like now I have to watch them like a hawk 24/7, which is
stressful. And I don't understand how you can be expected to stop
your pet from digging in the garden.'

A statement from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council said the site was
used to make sheds and greenhouses and 'involved treating wood
with substances like creosote and used tar like chemicals to
preserve them'

It stated: 'These are substances that might still be in the
ground.

'There are possible health effects from taking in large amounts of
these substances.'

It added: 'This area was the site of a former works that we
believe may have carried out timber treatment and we will be
looking for a number of different chemicals, but mainly for
hydrocarbons associated with timber treatment substances like tars
and creosotes.

'We have also heard that the site might have been involved in
making barns with asbestos material in them so will be looking for
that too.'

Residents have also been told by the council that the
investigation will mean it 'might make it difficult to sell a
property' before the results are known.

It stated: 'While the investigation is being carried out it might
make it difficult to sell a property and we know that the
possibility of contaminated land on the site has already caused
some problems for house sellers.'

Head of environment for the council Gary Stevenson said: 'We
understand how sensitive this matter is and it is important to us
that we keep residents and home owners fully informed.

'We have been in contact with residents and homeowners personally
and by letter, and have held two drop-in information sessions.

'We will continue to keep them informed and answer any further
questions that they may have.'

Council workers are set to start taking soil samples in June this
year and report back to locals in August.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medical Facilities for Ex-Mineworkers Set Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ishmael Modiba, writing for SABC.com, reported that medical
facilities for former mineworkers are to be established in
Kuruman, Northern Cape, in South Africa, in line with mining
regulation.

Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources Godfrey Oliphant made the
announcement at the opening of the new Black Mountain Zinc plant
at Aggeneys in the Northern Cape.  He says the facilities would
assist miners who have been affected by working  in environments
where they were exposed to asbestos.

Working with asbestos or living in a house built using asbestos
can help problems in the long run.

"We are hoping that by the end of June, we will have a facility
going on there. I must tell you that I have been working in that
area for a lot of months with those communities that are affected
by asbestos, "said Oliphant.

He says the department is working on similar projects in the
Eastern Cape, Gauteng and Limpopo provinces.

"We are focusing in Limpopo in Burgersfort area where there's also
been a lot asbestos," he notes.

Oliphant says a one stop service centre has already been opened in
Umthata where miners can get free access to medical examinations
and other rehabilitation facilities.

Oliphant says the opening of the plant aims to  boost to the
economy of the province. He says close to 400 full-time jobs will
be created and more jobs will be created for the construction
phases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Removed at Mary Ingles Elementary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Houser, writing for WSAZ.com, reported that asbestos was
removed from a boiler at Mary Ingles Elementary in West Virginia.

Concerned parents contacted WSAZ.com after seeing asbestos signs
at Mary Ingles Elementary School during the weekend. They say
they're wondering why they were never told about the asbestos.
They heard about the removal from their children.

Principal Melissa Wilfong said the asbestos was removed from the
boiler room, which is not attached to the school. She says since
then, they've been told the school was safe for kids to come back.
Their first priority is student safety.

"We've been assured everything is safe and we are fine to return,"
Wilfong said. "There was an air test done."

She added, "We also have air scrubbers in place that are cleaning
the air, as well."

The school has seen its share of potentially harmful toxins. In
March, mold was removed from the walls and ceiling of classrooms.
Parents are relieved the school will have a major facelift during
the summer. James has a niece who attends the school. He says it's
about time these problems are fixed. "I hope they get it all done
for our kids sake and i hope it doesn't happen again."

Wilfong assures parents the school is safe. She says, "I keep
reminding everyone. Yes, we have a lot of things going on right
now, but it will be well worth the wait when we start the year."

In addition to asbestos and mold removal, a new ceiling and roof
will be installed. Light fixtures, plus electrical and sprinkler
systems will be replaced. Pipes with asbestos in them will be
removed.

The price tag for all these renovations is more than $155,000.
Last month, the school board agreed these problems needed to be
fixed before the start of the school year in the fall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Airport to Delay Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warren L. Wise, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that
removing asbestos-laced materials discovered during expansion of
Charleston International Airport, in South Carolina, will cost
$670,000 and delay the project's expected completion by 32 days to
September 2015.

Matt McCoy with Michael Baker Inc., the firm overseeing
construction at the 29-year-old terminal building, told an airport
committee the cost will chew into the $11.2 million set aside for
unexpected expenses during the two-and-a-half-year project. To
date, about $1.85 million of the contingency fund has been used.

"The (cost of) asbestos is a little more than I would have liked
for it to have been, but it is significantly less than what it
could have been," Airports Director Paul Campbell said. "I don't
think it will be significant as far as the delay."

The discovery of asbestos in January was originally estimated to
extend construction by 77 days, he said.

Exposure to asbestos has been linked to cancer. It was found in
the front wall of the terminal building and behind the outside
walls of Concourse A. The front wall is being ripped away to be
replaced with glass to allow more light into the building. The
other walls where asbestos was found will be part of an expanded
two-story area to house consolidated security checkpoints and
upper-level administrative offices.

The terminal is in the throes of a $189 million makeover.
Construction was originally set to be completed in August 2015.

When the asbestos was first found, crews contained areas housing
the substance, and airport officials said air travelers and
visitors were never affected because the contaminated walls were
already barricaded with temporary walls and not in public areas.

"We are very confident that none of this material caused any
harm," McCoy said.

The asbestos was discovered in a black tar-like substance used to
install vapor barriers or waterproofing material. It was concealed
behind the bricked-up walls.

A good portion of removal is completed, but more work remains as
demolition and renovation starts behind the airline ticket
counters to make an entrance to the new eight-lane security
checkpoint area under construction.

Also, part of the one-month construction delay is the recent
discovery that a waterline and existing fire hydrant and valve
have to be repaired. That will cost $252,000 extra and will also
come from the contingency fund.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Companies Seek Garlock Fibro Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daneman, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that a
growing number of companies are getting access to court-sealed
evidence that allegedly points to widespread legal chicanery in
asbestos-related personal injury suits.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge George R. Hodges ruled that Ford Motor
Co., Honeywell International Inc., Volkswagen Group of America,
Crane Co., Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co.
could have access to sealed testimony and exhibits in the ongoing
bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, a Palmyra maker of
industrial gaskets and seals. The court in April similarly
unsealed the documents for insurance giant Aetna Inc.

The testimony and exhibits were part of the evidence Garlock used
when arguing before Hodges about how much it likely would have to
pay in coming years to settle claims that asbestos Garlock once
used in its products resulted in cases of mesothelioma, a rare
cancer. Hodges ultimately sided with Garlock, ruling it would
probably have to pay $125 million to settle any current and future
lawsuits. A bankruptcy committee representing various personal
injury law firms had argued Garlock could have to pay $1 billion
or so, based on the company's recent history of settlement
amounts.

In that January ruling in which he sided with Garlock, Hodges
wrote that the sealed evidence pointed to "extensive abuse" in the
legal system by plaintiffs and their lawyers. Hodges, pointing to
Garlock's evidence, said there is evidence that attorneys suing
Garlock frequently would withhold evidence their clients could
have been exposed to asbestos from other, non-Garlock sources.

Ford in March filed a motion asking for access to the evidence,
with various other companies like Volkswagen and Honeywell jumping
on board. Ford said in its motion that the Garlock ruling "has
revealed information suggesting that Ford too may have been
defrauded in some of the same cases and that this problem is
pervasive and substantial enough to warrant further inquiry."

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants had
objected to the Ford motion.

Judge Hodges, in his ruling, wrote that there was no good legal
argument as to why the evidence should be closed to Ford and the
others.

Ford also indicated in its motion that it may legally go after
parties involved in past lawsuits against it, saying it might
"seek redress in a court of law" once it goes over the once-sealed
evidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grundy County Looking for Fibro Removal Budget
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Bourque, writing for Morris Daily Herald, reported that
the Grundy County Courthouse, in Illinois, could undergo extensive
asbestos removal during the county's next budget cycle.

Asbestos comprises much of the courthouse's pipe insulation and
tiling, and has proved to be an increasing hazard within the
courthouse.

In the last year, emergency asbestos removal was needed twice -
once after a plumbing issue within a bathroom and another after
carpeting in the basement was being replaced, Grundy County
Sheriff Kevin Callahan said.

According to Callahan, the courthouse's boiler is very old and was
insulated with asbestos before the substance was known to cause
health problems.

"There's nothing dangerous about it unless it gets disturbed and
becomes airborne," Callahan said.

The most-recent emergency removal cost the county $9,600 between
eradicating and replacing the asbestos.

Callahan discussed the issue at the Grundy County Facilities
Committee meeting where he presented a quote to have all of the
asbestos removed from the courthouse. The three-phase project was
quoted at about $36,000 by the same company that had completed the
emergency removals.

The project phases were prioritized by which areas were the most
dangerous or at risk, and the courthouse's boiler room was deemed
the largest risk, Callahan said.

"Who knows? Maybe you could go another 20 years without anything
going wrong," Callahan told the committee. "But if you did have a
problem later on with a pipe burst, you're going to have to
potentially shut the courthouse down."

Facilities Committee Chairman John Roth said he would like to see
a presentation from a contractor about the urgency of the problem,
which would help make it a priority on next year's budget cycle.

The county does not currently have enough money budgeted to tackle
the problem, but will begin preparing next year's budget soon.

"Regardless of what happens in November in the budget process, I
want this brought up," Roth said. "This is an issue that needs to
be addressed."

Callahan assures the courthouse is safe and that air samples were
taken after the last asbestos removal project.

"There's nothing else, no other areas, that are disturbed right
now," Callahan said. "It's more preventative. You always want to
avoid those emergency situations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Under Way at NZ City Courthouse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyn Humphreys, writing for Taranaki Daily News, reported that the
courthouse in New Plymouth, New Zealand, remains wrapped in
protective plastic as the second stage of a $1.2m upgrade and
removal of asbestos continues.  The upgrade involved two stages,
the Ministry of Justice spokesman Fraser Gibbs, said.

The first stage, involving replacing the main roof and exterior
windows and painting the exterior, was finished in December last
year.  The cost of this first stage was $800,000.

"The ministry is now proceeding with a further $400,000 second
stage to upgrade and waterproof the entrance atrium and its roof.

"We are currently under way with the replacement and waterproofing
of the atrium windows," he said.

The work was expected to be completed in August.  As part of the
work, asbestos was being removed from the entrance's window
panels.

"We will not know the exact amount of asbestos present until we
remove the window panels," he said. Throughout the construction
works, the ministry had been communicating with staff to address
any concerns, he said.

The asbestos is disposed of at Colson Road Landfill in accordance
with New Plymouth District Council requirements. This work has
been notified to Worksafe New Zealand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NUTPLUG Found to Contain Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that in
a summary published in Australian Mining, Origin Energy was
notified by its supplier, Australian Mud Company, that a product
known as NUTPLUG that was occasionally used in oil drilling mud,
was found to contain asbestos.

Origin didn't bat an eye. The driller immediately suspended
operations at 12 active drilling sites until it could be
determined if the drilling mud potentially affected by asbestos
was being used. "All stocks of affected material have been
quarantined and accounted for throughout the supply chain from
storage warehouse to sites, and specialist waste removal experts
are in the process of removing that material from each location
for safe disposal," Origin Energy said in a statement.

AMC, the drilling mud supplier, also announced it had withdrawn
the suspected asbestos drilling mud and was undertaking an
investigation to determine its source and the means by which the
dangerous product managed to migrate into the supply chain.

Many a drilling mud lawsuit has alleged that drillers utilize
asbestos drilling mud for its insulating and heat-dissipating
properties, without concerning themselves with the safety of those
who handle the substance. Various stories have surfaced where a
mud engineer is engulfed in asbestos dust during the process of
mixing the drilling mud, the source material for which often
arrives in powdered form. There have been numerous allegations
that employers have taken no steps to protect their workers from
the dangers and carcinogenic properties of asbestos -- and
employees were kept in the dark.

Lawsuits have also alleged that operators may not have known about
the drilling mud problem, but should have.

Asbestos was a mainstay in the industrial sector until the 1970s,
when heightened public awareness of its cancer-causing properties
prompted many industries to ban its use. However, asbestos is
still processed and actively used in various parts of the globe,
especially under-developed and emerging economies.

Australia is not one of them. "Our highest priority remains the
health and safety of everyone associated with the project," Origin
said. "Specialist support is being provided to those that may have
been exposed to the drilling fluid additives and a specialist
hotline has been established.

"In the interim an alternative product has been sourced."

Airborne asbestos fibers, when ingested into the lungs, can lay
dormant for decades before finally emerging as asbestosis,
asbestos mesothelioma or asbestos cancer. There is no known cure.
While asbestos is not banned completely in the US, its use is
severely restricted to a few, limited industrial sectors such as
the automotive brake industry. Demolition or renovation of old
buildings containing asbestos insulation and other asbestos-based
products have given rise to the creation of an industry dedicated
to the safe eradication of asbestos - and guidelines are in place
to assure the safety of workers and the public at large.

In many cases, however, these guidelines are not adequately
followed.

As for the oil drilling industry, oil drilling mud remains an
integral mainstay of the drilling process. However, as the
Australian example points out, asbestos is no longer a necessary
component in oil drilling mud.

In other words, effective drilling mud doesn't have to be asbestos
drilling mud. There are alternatives, and the Australian example
speaks to the need for vigilance. It's the least an operator can
do to ensure that drilling mud additives are not sufficient to
cause serious illness, or even death, amongst those tasked with
working with the stuff.

Australian Mining reported March 19 that Origin had re-started
drilling at five rigs in Queensland, but only after the suspected
asbestos drilling mud was removed, and only after substantive
airborne and surface testing confirmed that asbestos was not
present. The remaining seven rigs would resume following similar
testing and clearance.

Many a US-based drilling mud engineer felled by drilling mud
chemicals, might well wish the same degree of precaution had been
taken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Stays Order Allowing Access to 2019 Filings
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the federal court overseeing
Garlock Sealing Technologies' bankruptcy proceedings has stayed
its recent order allowing several defendants access to Rule 2019
filing.

In the May 7 order, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina granted the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants' motion to stay the order --
entered one-day prior -- pending resolution of "any appeal of that
Order."

The Committee moved to stay the order the same day it was issued,
saying that asbestos plaintiffs would be "irreparably" harmed if
the order was not stayed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: COFO Building Found to Contain Toxic Dust
----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Mitchell, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reported that
environmental officials say they warned city officials in
Meridian, Mississippi, that a permit was needed before tearing
down the historic building where James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner
and his wife, Rita, all worked in 1964.

The building, where the Council of Federated Organizations kept
its office in 1964, was torn down anyway, said Robbie Wilbur,
communications director for the state Department of Environmental
Quality.

"Demolition requires an asbestos inspection report and also the
submission of a project demolition notification form to the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality," he said. "These
were not done."

DEQ inspectors found asbestos in the roof and flooring debris.

When breathed in, asbestos can scar the lungs and hamper
breathing. Repeated exposure to asbestos can cause cancer.

Wilbur said clean up and disposal should begin soon "under the
guidance of the MDEQ Asbestos Program. The material will be sent
to a landfill approved to take asbestos material."

Prior to the razing, there had been attempts to restore the
property and turn it into a possible place for tourists because of
the connection to Chaney and Schwerner, who along with Andrew
Goodman, were killed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964.

Meridian Community Development Director John McClure said a
collapsed roof had hurt those efforts.  He said his office had
told the contractor he needed a city permit before razing the
building.  That city paperwork includes a requirement for all
environmental permits, he said. Because the contractor had failed
to get a city permit in advance, the fee was doubled, he said.

Because asbestos was found, the contractor could face a monetary
fine.  McClure said the city faces no liability because it warned
the contractor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surgical Candidates Compare Mortality Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that pleural
mesothelioma patients considering surgery should be aware of the
latest comparison study, detailing the mortality and morbidity
rates of aggressive extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and
pleurectomy/decortication (P/D).

Despite advances in all therapies that make up the standard of
care for mesothelioma, the EPP surgery still carries stubbornly
high mortality and morbidity rates when compared to the less
aggressive -- but often equally effective -- P/D surgery.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in April
published the findings of a three-year, multicenter study of
surgical morbidity and mortality in both procedures.

The significant difference in the rates continues to fuel the
simmering debate over which procedure is most advantageous to
patients.

Both procedures involve removing the thin lining around the lungs,
which is where the cancer typically begins spreading. The EPP also
involves removing an entire diseased lung, the lining around the
heart and major parts of the diaphragm to hopefully remove as much
of the disease as possible.

The P/D involves removing the entire lining, plus meticulously
removing any tumors visible on the lung and throughout the chest
cavity. The patient retains both lungs.

"I don't think there were any big surprises in the study, but
rather what we suspected all along. It confirmed some of the
feelings we already had," renowned mesothelioma surgeon Wickii
Vigneswaran, M.D., at the University of Chicago Medical Center,
told Asbestos.com. "This is a disease in which there still is no
great treatment yet. We're striving for that."

Vigneswaran and the University of Chicago have been leaders in
developing more advanced diagnostics, better therapies and
improved surgical outcomes throughout the past decade, but the
study reiterated how much work must still be done. There is no
definitive cure for mesothelioma. The majority of patients live
less than two years after diagnosis.

Wide Range of Patients Studied

The study included 225 pleural mesothelioma patients treated from
2009 to 2011, who were part of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons
General Thoracic Surgery Database. There were 130 P/D patients and
95 EPP patients, spanning a wide variety of medical centers, from
high volume (more than five procedures annually) to low volume
(one annually).

There were 24 different centers doing at least one P/D and 37
centers that performed at least one EPP. Only 13 centers did both
during the study period.

The EPP had a post-operative mortality (death within 30 days) of
10.5 percent, compared to just 3.1 percent with the P/D. The EPP
had a major morbidity (complication) rate of 24.2 percent compared
to just 3.8 percent with the P/D. An unexpected return to the
operating room occurred in 9.5 percent of the EPP patients, but
only 1.5 percent of the P/D patients.

The study also accentuated the statistical advantage patients
receive when having surgery at a higher volume center. The
mortality rate after the EPP was just 6.5 percent at the high-
volume centers, but 12.5 percent at the lower volume centers.
There also was a higher rate of acute respiratory distress
syndrome (ARDS) at the lower volume centers.
Patients Should Find High-Volume Center

"It's so important for a patient to seek out a center with
expertise with this particular disease," said Vigneswaran, one of
seven authors of the study. "It's not just the surgeon but the
whole team, from the tumor board discussing the case and the best
way to handle it, to the nursing staff and post-operative care.
Experience is critical."

Among surgeons across the country, there are proponents of each
procedure, although the long-term survival statistics and studies
have been mixed. Survival rates often depend on the stage of the
disease when diagnosed, the histological type of mesothelioma, the
overall health and age of the patient and the surgical selection
process. Less than half of mesothelioma patients are selected for
major surgery. Some centers are more selective about who is
eligible.

Proponents of Each Type of Surgery

Some studies conclude that EPP should not be done under any
circumstances.

Surgeon Robert Cameron, M.D., a mesothelioma specialist and
director of thoracic surgery at the UCLA Medical Center, has
lobbied for years to eliminate the EPP surgery, believing that
patients are better served with the lung-sparing P/D surgery.

Meanwhile, surgeon David Sugarbaker, M.D., a mesothelioma
specialist who recently became chief of general thoracic surgery
at the Baylor College of Medicine, remains a strong proponent of
the EPP procedure he helped pioneer.

Vigneswaran, like the majority of mesothelioma specialists,
believes there is a place for both types of surgery. The key, he
said, is the careful selection process.

"It has to be tailored to the patient," he said. "We are very
selective in who is offered the EPP because it is such a complex
procedure. It's a big decision for everyone. We have had good
results with both procedures. For a patent, it would not be wise
to have it (EPP) done where they are doing only one or two a year.
That, you can say for sure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Version of Fibro Transparency Bill Emerges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reported that Sen. Jeff Flake,
R-Ariz., introduced the Senate companion to legislation that
passed the U.S. House of Representatives on party lines in
November requiring new disclosures about asbestos injury claims
from the massive trusts charged with disbursing insolvent
companies' funds.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2013, or H.R.
982 is aimed at cutting down on payments of duplicative and
fraudulent claims by requiring asbestos bankruptcy trusts to
divulge identifying details on individual claimants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Dismisal of "Andro" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cavini G. Andro filed a lawsuit on behalf of Decedent Renee
Andro's illness and subsequent death due to her alleged exposure
to asbestos products, asbestos fibers, and asbestos dust.
Defendant Union Carbide Corporation filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey treated treat as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.

In an opinion dated April 8, 2014, District Judge Robert B. Kugler
granted UCC's motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint was
barred by statutes of limitations.  Judge Kugler pointed out that
under New Jersey law, wrongful death and survivor actions must be
"commenced within 2 years after the death of the decedent, and not
thereafter."  Judge Kugler granted UCC's motion to dismiss after
determining that the Plaintiff filed the complaint approximately
two years and nine months after Ms. Andro died.

The case is CAVINI G. ANDRO, Individually and as Administrator of
the Estate of RENEE ANDRO, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 13-5249 (RBK/KMW)(D.N.J.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/WZAQff
from Leagle.com.

CAVINI G. ANDRO, Plaintiff, represented by WEITZ & LUXENBERG.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, Esq. -- rpicini@carusosmith.com -- at CARUSO
SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Directed to Release Pathology Materials
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy David Harris and his wife, Robin L. Harris, filed a
complaint alleging that Mr. Harris developed mesothelioma as a
result of breathing asbestos that had been contained in products
and/or equipment of the defendants sued.  Mr. Harris died a few
months after the complaint was filed.  Before he died, tissue
samples were obtained from different locations in his lungs and
lymph nodes by doctors at Duke University Health System, Inc.  The
Defendants' expert, Dr. Tim Oury, requested additional tissue from
Duke but Duke produced recut sections as it was their policy not
to release original materials.

The Defendants filed a motion seeking the entry of an order
authorizing the release of Mr. Harris' pathology materials from
Duke.  The Plaintiff did not oppose the Defendants' motion.  In an
order dated Dec. 31, 2013, the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville, granted the
Defendants' motion.  Duke then filed a motion for protective order
to set aside and/or for reconsideration of the Pathology Order.

District Judge Martin Reidinger, in an order dated April 7, 2014,
denied Duke's motion and directed the institution to make
available the pathology material requested to Dr. Oury.  Judge
Reidinger ruled that the Pathology Order directing Duke to release
to defense counsel pathology materials of Mr. Harris will not
detrimentally affect Duke's accreditation; it does not require
Duke to violate any law or legally-enforceable regulation; and the
Order is not oppressive or unduly burdensome.  The Court further
ruled that if the requested materials were not produced, the
Defendants would be unduly prejudiced in defending the Plaintiff's
claims.

The case is ROBIN L. HARRIS, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Billy David Harris, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AJAX
BOILER, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00311-MR-
DLH (W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/hHkAPLfrom Leagle.com.

Robin L. Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Naman, Esq. --
barrettnaman@nemerofflaw.com -- at Nemeroff Law Firm.  The
Plaintiff is also represented by:

         Cathy Anne Williams
         William M. Graham
         WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
         525 N. Main St.
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Tel: (704) 633-5244

American Standard, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore Leatherwood
LLP.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B.
Williamson, Esq. -- swilliamson@vwlawfirm.com -- at Van Winkle,
Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq. --
tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- and William Michael Starr, Esq.
-- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- at Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- at Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Elaine Shofner,
Esq. -- eshofner@hptylaw.com -- and Teresa E. Lazzaroni, Esq. --
tlazzaroni@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins & Parnell LLP.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq., at
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Union Carbide Corp, Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Esq. -- csprinkle@hsblawfirm.com -- Moffatt G.
McDonald, Esq. -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Scott E. Frick, Esq.
-- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- and W. David Conner, Esq. --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- at Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd, P.A.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Esq., at Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Duke University Health System, Inc., Movant, represented by Donna
Renfrow Rutala, Esq. -- drr@youngmoorelaw.com -- and Michelle
Allean Greene, Esq. -- mag@youngmoorelaw.com -- at Young, Moore &
Henderson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Corley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint was filed in the Northern District of Ohio on April 9,
1998 by The Jaques Admiralty Law Firm on behalf of Charles Corley
to recover for asbestos-related personal injuries.  The case was
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 1,
2011, as part of the consolidated asbestos products liability
multidistrict litigation.  Mr. Corley's case was assigned to the
Court's 02-875 Maritime Docket.  On December 14, 2011, The Jaques
Admiralty Law Firm filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Mr.
Corley's case due to the unavailability of Mr. Corley and his
beneficiaries.  As a result, Mr. Corley's case was dismissed and
marked closed by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Almost a year later on December 13, 2012, The Law Offices of G.
Patterson Keahey filed a Motion for Substitution of Attorney.
Concurrently, Mr. Keahey filed a Motion to Substitute Party
Plaintiff and to Grant Relief from the Order of Dismissal on
behalf of Oscar Allen Corley as the Administrator of the Estate of
Charles Corley.  The Court granted Mr. Keahey's Motion to
Substitute on January 2, 2013.  On August 28, 2013, the Court
granted the Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and to Grant
Relief from the Order of Dismissal.  The case was then reopened
and placed on a new scheduling order.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss collectively filed by 22
defendants, asserting that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure because the Plaintiff's cause of action does not arise
out of the Defendants' specific contacts with Ohio, and Ohio's
long-arm statute does not recognize general jurisdiction.  In
response, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are subject to
Ohio's long-arm statute.  In the alternative, the Plaintiff moves
the Court for a continuance to conduct jurisdictional discovery
and requests leave to amend the complaint after such discovery is
complete.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, in a memorandum dated April 3,
2014, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for a Continuance and to Amend the Complaint,
ruling that the Plaintiff is not permitted to undertake a "fishing
expedition" under the guise of jurisdictional discovery in order
to support his claims 16 years after the complaint was filed.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)
relating to OSCAR ALLEN CORLEY, Administrator of the Estate of
Charles Corley, deceased Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, ET AL. Defendants, CONSOLIDATED MDL DOCKET NO. 875, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-57079-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/mjsHSYand Order at http://is.gd/0Zfaa3from
Leagle.com.

OSCAR ALLEN CORLEY, Plaintiff, represented by:

         Grover Patterson Keahey, Jr., Esq.
         THE KEAHEY LAW FIRM
         One Independence Plaza, Suite 612
         Birmingham, AL 35209

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by STEPHEN C.
MUSILLI, Esq. -- scmusilli@vorys.com -- and RICHARD D. SCHUSTER,
Esq. -- rdschuster@vorys.com -- at VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND
PEASE.

CRANE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL J. ZUKOWSKI, Esq.
-- michal.ziolkowski@klgates.com -- at K&L GATES.

CROWN, CORK & SEAL CO., INC., Defendant, represented by:

         Beth A. Sebaugh, Esq.
         BONEZZI SWITZER MURPHY POLITO HUPP CO LPA
         1300 East 9th Street
         Suite 1950
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Tel: 216-586-2013
         Fax: 216-875-1570

DANA CORP., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN C. MUSILLI, Esq.,
and RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, Esq., at VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE.

GOODRICH, B.F., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN C. MUSILLI,
Esq., and RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, Esq., at VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND
PEASE.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN C.
MUSILLI, Esq., and RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, Esq., at VORYS, SATER,
SEYMOUR AND PEASE.

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MARY
MARGARET GAY, Esq. -- gaymm@fpwk.com -- at FORMAN PERRY WATKINS
KRUTZ & TARDY LLP.

JAMES WALKER MFG. CO., Defendant, represented by BRUCE P. MANDEL,
Esq. -- bmandel@ulmer.com -- at ULMER & BERNE.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- at MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MORTELL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CLARE SMITH RUSH, Esq.
-- rushcs@fpwk.com -- at FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ TARDY LLP, and
JENNIFER A. RIESTER, Esq. -- JRiester@westonhurd.com -- at WESTON
HURD.

SELBY BATTERSBY AND CO., Defendant, represented by FRANCIS MCGILL
HADDEN, Esq. -- fhadden@gibbonslaw.com -- and JOSEPH M. CINCOTTA,
Esq. -- jcincotta@gibbonslaw.com -- at GIBBONS P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal Enlarged in 5 NYCAL Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued several orders enlarging to the November 2014
Term the time to perfect in these cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to PORTA,
     v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-858
     (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the April 8, 2014,
     decision is available at http://is.gd/xxV8B0from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
     D'ANDRADE, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY -- CRANE CO. -- CRANE
     PUMPS & SYSTEMS, INC., MOTION NO. M-859 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
     full-text copy of the April 8, 2014, decision is available at
     http://is.gd/8Bkgqufrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to AMBIS,
     v. A.C. & S., INC. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1159 (N.Y. App.
     Div.).  A full-text copy of the April 17, 2014, decision is
     available at http://is.gd/44IAhHfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to LONDON,
     v. A.C. & S., INC. -- CRANE CO. -- ESTATE OF BAKER, MOTION
     NO. M-1158 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
     April 17, 2014, decision is available at http://is.gd/xOgQd4
     from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BONFEY,
     v. A.C. & S., INC. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1156 (N.Y. App.
     Div.).  A full-text copy of the April 17, 2014, decision is
     available at http://is.gd/oqQnxcfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver et al. Wins Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Scott W. Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Wyoming granted the motions for summary judgment filed
by Gardner Denver, Inc., Bechtel, Inc., FMC Corporation, CBS
Corporation, and General Electric Company, as defendants in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled RONALD P. JOHNSON,
as Personal Representative of THE ESTATE OF H. PAUL JOHNSON,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT
LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-011-SWS
(D. Wy.)., after determining that the Plaintiff has not
established a genuine dispute of material fact concerning
causation.  The evidence and testimony, according to Judge
Skavdahl, failed to link a single fiber of asbestos attributable
to any of the Defendants to Mr. Johnson's mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of Judge Skavdahl's memorandum and order dated
April 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/uUYY54from
Leagle.com.

Ronald P Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by:

         G Patterson Keahey, Jr., Esq.
         Lawrence Holcomb, Esq.
         THE KEAHEY LAW FIRM
         One Independence Plaza, Suite 612
         Birmingham, AL 35209

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, represented by WALTER S.
JENKINS, Esq. -- wsj@maronmarvel.com -- at MARON MARVEL BRADLEY &
ANDERSON LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Christopher C Voigt, Esq. -- cvoigt@crowleyfleck.com -- at CROWLEY
FLECK.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Tracy H Fowler,
Esq. -- tfowler@swlaw.com -- at SNELL & WILMER LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Jurisdiction Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Douglas Leite and David Thompson, worked as machinists at the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii, where they were allegedly
injured by exposure to asbestos.  They sued several companies
under state tort law on the theory that the defendants failed to
warn them of the hazards posed by asbestos used in and around
equipment that defendants sold to the United States Navy.

The Plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits against Crane Co. in state
court, but Crane removed the actions to federal court under the
federal officer removal statute.  The Plaintiffs asked the
district courts to remand the actions to state court on the ground
that Crane had not provided sufficient evidence of the factual
requirements for removal jurisdiction.  In both cases, the
district courts denied the plaintiffs' motions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that Crane has
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a causal nexus
exists between the plaintiffs' claims and the actions Crane took
at the direction of a federal officer.  In assessing whether a
causal nexus exists, the Ninth Circuit credited the defendant's
theory of the case.  The Ninth Circuit found that that nexus
exists in the instant case because the very act that forms the
basis of plaintiffs' claims -- Crane's failure to warn about
asbestos hazards -- is an act that Crane contends it performed
under the direction of the Navy.

Judge Paul J. Watford, writing for the Ninth Circuit, stated
"Crane may not be right -- indeed, it may be that the Navy had
nothing to do with Crane's failure to warn.  But the question
"whether the challenged act was outside the scope of [Crane's]
official duties, or whether it was specifically directed by the
federal Government, is one for the federal -- not state -- courts
to answer."

The cases are DOUGLAS P. LEITE; MARY ANN K. LEITE, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. CRANE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; AURORA PUMP
COMPANY, a foreign corporation; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.,
successor-in-interest to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, a foreign
company, AKA Amchem Products, Inc., AKA Benjamin Foster Products
Company; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a New York corporation; AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., a New York corporation; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., a Delaware corporation; GOULDS
PUMPS, INC., a Delaware corporation; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Delaval Turbine,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, FKA Delaval Steam Turbine Company,
FKA IMO Delaval, Inc., FKA Transamerica Delaval, Inc.; INGERSOLL
RAND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; JOHN CRANE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; THE LYNCH COMPANY, INC., a Hawaii
corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York
corporation; WARREN PUMPS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; THE
WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; VELAN VALVE
CORPORATION, a New York corporation; COPES-VULCAN, a subsidiary of
SPX Corporation, a Delaware corporation; ATWOOD & MORRILL, a
subsidiary of Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., a Massachusetts
Corporation; DOES 1 TO 25, Defendants-Appellees; and DAVID
THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRANE COMPANY, Delaware
corporation; AURORA PUMP COMPANY, a foreign corporation; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., successor-in-interest to Rhone-Poulenc AG
Company, a foreign company, AKA Amchem Products, Inc., AKA
Benjamin Foster Products Company; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a New
York corporation; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, successor-by-
merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., a New York corporation; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; GOULDS PUMPS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Delaval Turbine, Inc., a Delaware corporation, FKA Delaval Steam
Turbine Company, FKA IMO Delaval, Inc., FKA Transamerica Delaval,
Inc.; INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; JOHN
CRANE, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE LYNCH COMPANY, INC., a
Hawaii corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New
York corporation; WARREN PUMPS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; THE
WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; VELAN VALVE
CORPORATION, a New York corporation; COPES-VULCAN, a subsidiary of
SPX Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; ATWOOD & MORRILL, a
subsidiary of Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., a Massachusetts
Corporation; DOES 1 TO 25, Defendants-Appellees, NOS. 12-16864,
12-16982 (9th Cir.).

A full-text copy of Judge Watford's opinion dated April 25, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/rp2wD2from Leagle.com.

L. Richard DeRobertis, Esq., Gary O. Galiher, Esq., and Todd W.
Eddins, Esq., at Galhier DeRobertis Ono, Honolulu, Hawaii, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Michael J. Ross, Esq. -- michael.ross@klgates.com -- Nicholas P.
Vari, Esq. -- nick.vari@klgates.com -- and Michael J. Zukowski,
Esq., at K&L Gates LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Edward P.
Sangster, Esq. -- ed.sangster@klgates -- at K&L Gates LLP, San
Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Victim Allowed to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the motion to
dismiss is granted with leave to amend filed by Union Pacific
Railroad in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned
JOHN PARISE, JR., Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Defendant,
NO. 2:14-CV-0036 KJM CKD PS (E.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of
the magistrate judge's order dated April 24, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/QiEeWlfrom Leagle.com.

John James Parise, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.  Union Pacific
Railroad, Defendant, represented by John Daniel Feeney, Esq.,
Union Pacific Railroad Law Department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Reverses Ruling in "Ascione" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Airways appeals from the order of the Division of Workers'
Compensation in favor of petitioner Frank Ascione on the merits of
his occupational exposure claim.  Petitioner testified much of the
airline equipment he uses is old and the baggage conveyor belt
systems as old, often jamming, causing him and his co-workers to
crawl into the system to remove baggage.  When this occurs, dust,
dirt, and asbestos would fall on him.  The Division awarded
petitioner 7.5% permanent partial total disability for his
pulmonary injury.  The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, in on opinion dated April 10, 2014, reversed.

The case is FRANK ASCIONE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. U.S. AIRWAYS,
Respondent-Appellant, NO. A-5049-12T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/YND9QGfrom Leagle.com.

Andrea M. Graf, Esq. -- agraf@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson, LLP,
argued the cause for appellant.

Respondent is represented by:

         Ricky E. Bagolie, Esq.
         BAGOLIE-FRIEDMAN, LLC
         157 Ackerman Avenue
         Clifton, NJ 07011
         Phone: (973) 546-5414


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates' Bid to Stop Center's Renovations Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Mahan of the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada denied an inmate's "motion for an order to show
cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order" and another inmate's "motion for the court to appoint an
E.P.A. monitor to preserve asbestos evidence."  Plaintiffs are
pre-trial detainees incarcerated at the Clark County Detention
Center and they baldy assert that there is asbestos within the
ventilation system at CCDC, and that "rumored employees" have
developed cancer as a result.  Judge Mahan said he will not enjoin
the ongoing renovation of the detention center on the basis of
rumors and unsupported allegations.

The case is ANTHONY BAILEY, et al., Plaintiff(s) v. CAPT. SUEY, et
al., Defendant(s), NO. 2:12-CV-1954 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Mahan's April 14, 2014, order is available at
http://is.gd/Pm2PpFfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *