CAR_Public/140606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 112

                             Headlines


AMERICAN SAVINGS: Pursues Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Argument in Bag Check Class Action
BUMBLE BEE: Removed "Garrett" Suit to N.D. Calif.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Nixing of Total Bond Market Fund Claims Appealed
ENTERPRISE OPERATING: Did Not Pay Exotic Entertainers, Suit Says

FMC CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits in Canada, Europe Over Peroxygens
GOYA FOODS: "Park" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
GOYA FOODS: "Perez" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. California
IDS PROPERTY: Removed "Achziger" Class Suit to W.D. Washington
IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Shareholder Suit; Under SEC Investigation

IM SOLUTIONS: Accused of Trademark Infringement in E.D. Oklahoma
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" Plaintiffs Compete for Lead Status
INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Ruling Yet in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Containerboard
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Lawsuit Over Gypsum Board in Discovery

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of Guaranty-Related Suit Appealed
JACO OIL: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act in Cal.
KEY OIL: Removed "Cumpston" Suit to N.D. W.Va.
KIRBY CORP: Faces Suit for Business Interruption, Loss of Profit
LEAR CORP: Inks Agreement to Settle Antitrust Suit for $8.75MM

LEAR CORP: Still Faces Canadian Auto Wire Harness Antitrust Suits
LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal Hearing Set in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit
LEGGETT & PLATT: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Polyurethane Foam
LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Mo. Antitrust Suit
LEWIS ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

MATTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Junk Tex. Stock Lawsuit
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA: Removed "Taylor" Suit to N.D. Oklahoma
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Contests Certification in "Markocki" Lawsuit
OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Yet in RESPA Violations Suits v. RMIC

OVERSTOCK.COM INSURANCE: Sued Over Phone Calls' Illegal Recording
PFIZER INC: Seeks to Quash Depositions of High-Ranking Executives
PUBLIX SUPER: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay and Damages
RONAN CITY, MT: Accused of Violating Class Members' Civil Rights
RSI ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Vega" Labor Litigation Settled, Concluded
SOTHEBY'S INC: U.S. Artists Appeal Dismissal of Suit in Calif.
SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit Over "Proxy Puts"
SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit by La. Retirees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bares Effect of Credit Card Antitrust Suit Accord

SUNTRUST BANKS: Suits v. STRH Remain After Lehman Accord
SUNTRUST BANKS: Colonial BancGroup Stock Suit Partly Dismissed
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Plaintiffs Pursue Class Status
SUNTRUST BANKS: ERISA Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims
SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Claims in Mutual Funds Suit Appealed

SUNTRUST BANKS: "Mahdavieh" Suit Sent to S.D. Florida
SUNTRUST BANKS: Updates on Mortgage Reinsurance Lawsuits v. STM
THORATEC CORP: Shareholders Have Until June to File Amended Suit
TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Yang" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
TOTAL FRAC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Securities Suit v. PSI Continues in Tenn. Court
US BANK: Calif. Supreme Court Tosses $15-Mil. Overtime Award
VISION ONE: "Reverie" Suit Moved From Washington to Minnesota
VOSS LAW: Settles Paralegals' FLSA Overtime Lawsuit
WALGREENS CO: Enters Into Conditional Settlement in Labeling Suit

WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Action by Minn. Retirement System

* Number of TCPA Class Action Filings in N.Y. Likely to Increase


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Had 3,200 Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bel Fuse Settles Becker v. Adience Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Records ARO for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $50MM Reserves for A&E Loss
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 173 Fibro Cases Pending at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 269 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Shipholding Had $299MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 1,130 Pending PI Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,319 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 132 Pending Cases as of February 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. GenCorp Unit Remains Pending in La.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $129MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Continues to Fund NARCO Trust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 12,884 Unresolved Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Reports $200,000 Litigation Expenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Records $254.1-Mil. Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $2.31-Bil. Net Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $829.5-Mil Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Had 1,500 Fibro Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 22,548 Unresolved Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 24 Filter Cases v. Lorillard Scheduled for Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Awaits Ruling in Insurance Suit Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Plan Confirmation Appeals Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMI OK'd to Amend Indemnification Suit v. FFIC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Ex-Stimson Worker Has Fibro Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Ex-Workers' Award Upheld

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Denied for Failure to State Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Admission Bids OK'd in Ford v. Garlock Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q May File More Docs in Reinsurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Insurance Suit Headed for Arbitration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Insurers' Bid for Reargument Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Dropped as Defendant in "Ricco" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Vedros" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Freeman" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Fulwider" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Upholds Disability Benefits Suit Order

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Late Filing Leads to "Gensler" Suit Dismissal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Judge Recommends Remand of "Genusa" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Groover" Suit Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dropped as Defendant in "Gurnett" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hasenberg" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Hellam" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morse Diesel Awarded Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds' Summary Judgment Award in PI Suit Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Dropped as Defendant in "Moseley" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill of Costs in "Kinser" Suit Partially Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Carolina Court Dismisses "Lee" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in "McCormick" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in "Kestenbaum" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in Suits v. Jenkins Bros.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "McKim" Suit Conditionally OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Reverses Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Resumes at Middle School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Combs Site Where Fibro was Illegally Handled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Led to Death of Former Resort Welder

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Firm Fined $16,137 Over Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumpers Sought by Authorities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Commends Introduction of Fibro Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Found Illegally Dumped in Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holroyd Helps Residents Solve Fibro Disposal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk Closes NZ School for Another Week
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Company Fined for Dumping Fibro Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group's Fury Over Lawyers' 25% Cut of Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scare Shuts Down Blacktown Hospital Upgrade
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PennDOT to Remove Asphalt Containing Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Collegiate Governors Fined for Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire, Fibro Close University Biology Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Extends Work on Route 42
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Fibro Dumped in Stockholds Lane
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charleston Airport Wants to Recoup Fibro Losses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Begins Demolition Before Fibro Check
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "300 Week" Standard Not Applicable in Meso Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Giving Access to Garlock Filings Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk DA Eyes Possible Illegal Dumping at Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salvage Owner Guilty of Fibro-Related Charges

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Could be Exposed to Fibro at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found on LE Aoife Should Have Been Removed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Row Erupts Over GBP4.5-Mil. Flat Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Receives No Compensation in Legal Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jamaica Plain Contractor Fined for Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Lincoln Center to Start
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Toxic Dust at Wokingham Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alex Neil Blamed Over Hospital Wards' Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSPs Clash on Fibro Parliament Debate "Snub"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Decides Not to Identify Fibro-Filled Homes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meeting Held on Hospital's Future
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Doncaster Men Jailed in Illegal Waste Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Agency Not "Window Dressing"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Blames Fibro for Speldhurst Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Former Shipyard Worker Files Fibro Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Making Roadwork on Pa. Street More Tedious
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Compensation for Widow for Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Want to Limit Garlock Docs Access
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock FCR Supports Deadline for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Found in Bags Under House

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Adds to Registry to Better Protect Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ed Lauter Fibro Lawsuit Casts Wide Net
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Chichester's County Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Strips Fibro Without Face Mask
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delays Add to Fibro Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red Rock Elementary School Fibro-Free
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Disposal Costs Blamed for Illegal Fibro Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Exposure Victim Launches Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG & Resolute OK'd to Join in Access Info Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. High Court Flips Ruling in "Blackmon" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG PI Claimants Allowed to Proceed with Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court Affirms Judgment in "Fields" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Order in Colgate Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Bid to Vacate NOI in Suits Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in "Fields" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Dependent Benefits Claim Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Keeps Ruling in Legal Malpractice Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appleton Denied Summary Judgment in NY PI Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN SAVINGS: Pursues Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of American Savings Bank, F.S.B. from an order denying
dismissal of a suit over overdraft fees on debit card transactions
is currently pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court, according to
Hawaiian Electric Industries, 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 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that ASB had improperly charged overdraft fees on debit
card transactions. The lawsuit is still in its preliminary stage.
ASB filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that as a
bank chartered under federal law, ASB believes its business
practices are governed by federal regulations established for
federal savings banks and not by state law. In July 2011, the
Circuit Court denied ASB's motion and ASB appealed that decision.
ASB's appeal is currently pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court.


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Argument in Bag Check Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S.
District Judge William Alsup isn't ready to accept Apple's
argument that its employees choose to submit to the company's
security screenings and therefore can't demand wages for time
spent waiting in line and undergoing searches.

"The summary judgment record is at best ambiguous about whether
the security screenings were mandatory for at least some locations
and circumstances," Judge Alsup wrote in an order on May 30
denying Apple's motion for summary judgment in Frlekin v. Apple,
13-3451.

Judge Alsup also decided to stay the Northern District case
pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions
v. Busk, a similar case in which employees were not compensated
for time spent waiting to pass through metal detectors.

In arguments, McLaughlin & Stern partner Lee Shalov --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- told Judge Alsup Apple's bag checks
are mandatory and are performed for the benefit of Apple, which
means employees are entitled to compensation under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

But Apple lawyer Julie Dunne, cochairwoman of Littler Mendelson's
retail practice group, argued the checks are in fact optional
because employees are only screened if they choose to bring bags
or personal Apple products to work.

Attorneys from both sides did not return phone messages Friday
seeking comment.

In his order, Judge Alsup took issue with Apple's position.
"Apple employees may need to bring a bag to work for reasons they
cannot control, such as the need for medication, feminine hygiene
products, or disability accommodations," he wrote.

He distinguished two cases cited by Apple in which courts held
employees were not entitled to compensation for time spent taking
an employer-provided bus or van to work.  Opting to take the
provided transportation rather than finding another way to get to
work would be a choice based on personal convenience, not the
"necessities of life" that could require Apple employees to bring
a bag to work, Judge Alsup wrote.

The judge also expressed concern with many lingering questions of
fact in the case.  Even something as simple as the interpretation
of the word "bag" is up for debate, as one plaintiff testified she
was not checked if she brought only a wallet to work, but another
testified he was checked if he wore a jacket with pockets.
There is also the question of whether employees without bags must
still wait in line, or whether they are waved through, Judge Alsup
wrote.

"The record in this action . . . involves many varying fact
patterns and lends itself to a myriad of different interpretations
of Apple's policy and practice regarding when an employee is
required to undergo a security screening," he wrote.  "To be of
more assistance to our court of appeals, it would be better to
hold a trial (or at least produce a more comprehensive record) and
then decide the fact issues."

But that trial may be postponed until the spring of 2015, when
Judge Alsup expects the Supreme Court to rule in Integrity
Staffing.  That ruling could control the outcome of the federal
claims in the Apple case.  But Judge Alsup instructed both sides
to continue with discovery on the state law claims, which might
survive even if the federal claims are rendered moot.


BUMBLE BEE: Removed "Garrett" Suit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Garrett, et al. v.
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-264322, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Jose).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-02546-
HRL to the proceeding.

The case is a putative statewide class action challenging
statements on the labels of certain Bumble Bee products.
According to Plaintiffs Patrick Garrett, Jeff Mains and Linda
Eustice, Bumble Bee's products violated federal and state labeling
laws and regulations governing Omega-3 claims and American Heart
Association seals on food product labels.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Forrest A. Hainline III, Esq.
          Patrick S. Thompson, Esq.
          Robert B. Bader, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 677-9041
          E-mail: fhainline@goodwinprocter.com
                  pthompson@goodwinprocter.com
                  rbader@goodwinprocter.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Nixing of Total Bond Market Fund Claims Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit by investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market
Fund have again appealed the dismissal of their claims to the
Ninth Circuit Court, where the case is currently pending,
according to The Charles Schwab Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Northstar
lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that
the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives
by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs
have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is
currently pending.


ENTERPRISE OPERATING: Did Not Pay Exotic Entertainers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Toporcer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Enterprise Operating Company d/b/a St. James
Restaurant & Cabaret and Pete Garland, Case No. 3:14-cv-00167
(S.D. Tex., May 16, 2014) implicates the Defendants' alleged
longstanding policy of misclassifying their employees as
independent contractors.

Ms. Toporcer alleges that the Defendants required and permitted
her to work as an entertainer at their adult entertainment club,
but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rate.  In fact, she notes, the Defendants refused to
compensate her at all for the hours she worked, and her only
compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons.

Enterprise Operating Company, doing business as St. James
Restaurant & Cabaret is a domestic corporation doing business in
Texas.  Pete Garland is the owner and manager of St. James.  The
Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Houston, Texas,
under the name of St. James Restaurant & Cabaret.  They employ
exotic entertainers at St. James.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 West Alabama Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com
                  gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com


FMC CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits in Canada, Europe Over Peroxygens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp. is subject to actions brought by private plaintiffs over
alleged violations of European and Canadian competition and
antitrust laws related to its discontinued FMC Peroxygens
business, 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.

Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to
have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European
competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their
legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm. The single
entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against
European producers, including the company's wholly-owned Spanish
subsidiary, Foret. Initial defense briefs were filed in April
2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first quarter of
2011, at which time case management issues were discussed. At a
subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court indicated that it
was considering seeking guidance from the European Court of
Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts have jurisdiction
over these claims. After submission of written comments on this
issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge announced that
she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the ECJ. The court
issued its formal reference to the ECJ on April 29, 2013. Such a
reference to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months, from the date of
formal reference, for completion. Since the case is in the
preliminary stages and is based on a novel procedure -- namely the
attempt to create a cross-border "class action" which is not a
recognized proceeding under EU or German law -- the company is
unable to develop a reasonable estimate of the company's potential
exposure of loss at this time. The company intends to vigorously
defend this matter.

In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada. The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million. On September
28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class
of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide from 1994
to 2005. The company's motion for leave to appeal the class
certification decision was denied in June 2010. The case was
largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Court considered, in
different litigation, whether indirect purchasers may recover
overcharges in antitrust actions. In October 2013 the Court ruled
that such recovery is permissible. Despite this ruling, the
plaintiffs have now moved to dismiss certain downstream purchasers
from the case and to reduce the class period to November 1, 1998
through December 31, 2003 -- thereby eliminating six of the eleven
years of the originally certified class period.


GOYA FOODS: "Park" Suit Moved to Southern District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Andrew J. Park v. Goya
Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01789, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-
cv-01356-JAH-DHB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought as a consumer class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff himself and those who purchased Malta Goya, which is
manufactured and sold by the Company.  The Plaintiff contends that
he and the Class have been harmed by Goya's mislabeling and
improper marketing of Malta Goya.  In particular, he asserts,
while Goya touts Malta Goya as a rich, non-alcoholic nutritious
soft drink, brewed from the finest barley and hops, the Company
has failed to disclose that the Product contains the carcinogen 4-
methylimidazole ("4-MeI"), which has been on California's
Proposition 65 list of "Chemicals Known to the State to Cause
Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity" since January 7, 2011.

Headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey, Goya Foods is the largest,
Hispanic-owned food company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          THE ALEXANDER FIRM P.C.-A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5335
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5338
          E-mail: info@alexanderfirmpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY AND BACON L.L.P.
          Jamboree Center
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 475-1500
          Facsimile: (949) 475-0016
          E-mail: nkaneko@shb.com


GOYA FOODS: "Perez" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Julliann Perez v.
Goya Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02001, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The Southern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01358-JLS-JMA to the proceeding.

The case alleges product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir David Benakote, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Baker, Esq.
          Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: adb@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com


IDS PROPERTY: Removed "Achziger" Class Suit to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Achziger v. IDS Property
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 14-2-07594-0, was removed
from the Pierce County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-05445 to the proceeding.

The case asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
          1703a Dock Street
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sally Kim, Esq.
          Shannon Wodnik, Esq.
          Donald J. Verfurth, Esq.
          GORDON & REES (WA)
          701 Fifth Ave., Suite 2100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-0494
          E-mail: sallykim@gordonrees.com
                  swodnik@gordonrees.com
                  dverfurth@gordonrees.com


IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Shareholder Suit; Under SEC Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp. is responding to a formal investigation by
the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relating
to a restatement of financial statement and an amended complaint
in a consolidated shareholder class action, 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 28, 2014.

In connection with the Company's Restatement of Consolidated
Financial Statements, the Audit Committee conducted an independent
review of the underlying facts and circumstances, and the Company
is responding to a formal investigation by the staff of the SEC
relating to the restatement and other matters and an amended
complaint in a consolidated shareholder class action originally
filed June 28, 2013 in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against the Company and its CEO and CFO
seeking unspecified compensatory damages.  While the Company
believes the complaint is without merit, it is too early to
determine the potential outcome.


IM SOLUTIONS: Accused of Trademark Infringement in E.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony L. Allen, individually; Allen & Wisner, LLC; James E.
Blount, IV, individually; and Blount Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. IM Solutions, LLC,
LeadingResponse, LLC, Reed Elsevier Inc., and Internet Brands,
Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-00213-KEW (E.D. Okla., June 3, 2014)
accuses the Defendants of trademark infringement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall St, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com
                  skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          RICHARDS & CONNOR
          525 S Main St., 12th Floor
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 585-2394
          Facsimile: (918) 585-1449
          E-mail: lmurphy@richardsconnor.com

               - and -

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          1215 Classen Dr.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
          E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" Plaintiffs Compete for Lead Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Competing motions were filed for the appointment of lead plaintiff
in the securities suit Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., 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.

A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics,
Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in
the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the
Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute
concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9,
2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was
terminated. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 28, 2014,
competing motions were filed for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and approval of each proposed lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Ruling Yet in VLT Gaming Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has yet to rule on
whether the plaintiff in a suit by persons allegedly harmed by VLT
gaming have pleaded a cause of action, according to International
Game Technology's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On April 26, 2012, representatives of a purported class of persons
allegedly harmed by VLT gaming filed an action in the Supreme
Court of New Foundland and Labrador.  Atlantic Lottery Corporation
has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game
Technology and other third party defendants seeking
indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic
Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class action certification on September 17, 2012. The Court
has decided to address the motion for certification in two phases.
Under Phase 1, the Court will determine whether the Plaintiffs
have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on
June 6 and 7, 2013. The Court has not yet issued a decision.
Should the Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of
action, then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine the
appropriateness of certification of the putative class.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Containerboard
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company faces a consolidated lawsuit in the
Northern District of Illinois alleging it conspired to limit the
supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products,
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 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is
all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from
any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover
an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees
on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were
filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of
Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named
as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Lawsuit Over Gypsum Board in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. antitrust cases against Temple-Inland Inc. over gypsum board
are in discovery phase and the Canadian cases are in the
preliminary stage, according to International Paper Company's May
7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging
civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-
Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints
were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired
or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum
board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid
price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and
(3) restrict supply through downtime and limit order fulfillment.
The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board
and/or gypsum finishing products directly or indirectly from any
defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble
actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
classes. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning in or before September 2011. The Company disputes the
allegations made and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated
actions. In addition, in September 2013, purported class actions
were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with
each suit alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and
seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to
dispute the allegations made and to vigorously defend the
litigation. Because the U.S. cases are in the discovery phase and
the Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, the company is
unable to predict an outcome or estimate the company's maximum
reasonably possible loss. However, the company does not believe
that any material loss is probable.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of Guaranty-Related Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the suit North Port Firefighters' Pension v.
Temple-Inland Inc. has appealed the district court's ruling
dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, but it
did not appeal the dismissal of the claims against Temple-Inland,
according to International Paper Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Temple-Inland was named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned
North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in
November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleged a
class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual
defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the
financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period
December 12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. On March 28, 2013, the
district court granted Temple-Inland's and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. On April 26,
2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that asserted
claims against the individual defendants, but did not assert any
claims against Temple-Inland. On July 30, 2013, the district court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed against the
individual defendants with prejudice, also noting that since the
plaintiff did not seek the court's leave to amend its complaint
with respect to the claims against Temple-Inland, all claims
against Temple-Inland were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has
appealed the district court's ruling dismissing the claims against
the individual defendants, but it did not appeal the dismissal of
the claims against Temple-Inland.

Certain of the individual defendants in the North Port litigation
have requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-
Inland and have asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-
Inland. The company believes that all or part of these defense
costs would be covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors and
officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies
have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a
reservations of rights letter.


JACO OIL: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda De Santos, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Jaco Oil Company, a California
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00738-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal., May 16,
2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane Carson Stafford, Esq.
          SHANBERG, STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP
          19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-5444
          Facsimile: (949) 622-5448
          E-mail: sstafford@ssbfirm.com


KEY OIL: Removed "Cumpston" Suit to N.D. W.Va.
----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cumpston, et al. v. Key Oil
Company, Case No. 14-C-16, was removed from the Doddridge County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia (Clarksburg).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00093-IMK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marvin W. Masters, Esq.
          THE MASTERS LAW FIRM, LC
          181 Summers St.
          Peoples Bldg., 4th Floor
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 342-3106
          Facsimile: (304) 342-3189
          E-mail: mwm@themasterslawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy M. Smith, Esq.
          W. Henry Lawrence, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC - BRIDGEPORT
          400 White Oaks Blvd.
          Bridgeport, WV 26330
          Telephone: (304) 933-8000
          Facsimile: (304) 933-8183
          E-mail: Amy.Smith@steptoe-johnson.com
                  hank.lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com


KIRBY CORP: Faces Suit for Business Interruption, Loss of Profit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Corporation faces lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Southern District Court-Galveston Division for
alleged business interruption, loss of profit, loss of use of
natural resources, 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District Court-Galveston Division against it and Sea Galaxy
Ltd/Summer Wind. The actions include allegation of business
interruption, loss of profit, loss of use of natural resources and
seek unspecified economic and compensatory damages.

In addition, the Company has received claims from numerous parties
claiming property damage and various economic damages. The Company
has also been named as a defendant in a civil action by a
crewmember of the M/V Miss Susan, alleging damages under the
general maritime law and the Jones Act. The Company expects that
additional lawsuits may be filed and claims submitted.


LEAR CORP: Inks Agreement to Settle Antitrust Suit for $8.75MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation reached an agreement to settle for $8.75 million
a lawsuit alleging antitrust law violations in the automotive wire
harness business, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lear was named as a defendant in a number of class action
complaints in the United States that were consolidated into one
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses, alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws (the "Consolidated
Cases"). The class plaintiffs, who purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period,
allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which
automotive wire harnesses were sold. The class plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages.

In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases, on May 6, 2014, the Company,
entered into settlement agreements under which the class
plaintiffs will release the Company from all claims, demands,
actions, suits and causes of action in the Consolidated Cases. The
Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any
wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in
connection with this matter. Because the conduct alleged by the
class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the
Company's emergence from bankruptcy in 2009, the Settlement
Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75
million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the
Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock and
warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established
under the Company's plan of reorganization.

The settlement remains subject to approval by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.


LEAR CORP: Still Faces Canadian Auto Wire Harness Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corp. remains a defendant in putative class actions filed in
the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and British
Columbia, alleging violations of Canadian laws related to
competition in the automotive wire harnesses business, according
to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company also remains a defendant in a putative class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan by the City of Richmond, California
on behalf of itself and other so-called "Public Entities"
comprising states, state subdivisions, agencies and
instrumentalities, and local government subdivisions and agencies
(the "Public Entities Complaint"). The allegations in the Canadian
Complaints and Public Entities Complaint are substantially similar
to those alleged in the Consolidated Cases. The Company believes
the plaintiffs' allegations against it in the Canadian Complaints
and Public Entities Complaint are without merit and intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal Hearing Set in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has held
dates in October 2014 for the first trials to hear defendants'
Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order
in the suit In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 1:10-MD-2196, according to Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's May
7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20
defendants alleging that competitors of the company's carpet
underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and
Canadian antitrust laws.

A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most
without prejudice. Of the U.S. cases remaining, the company has
been named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class
action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated
amended class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on
behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam
products; (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended
complaint filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 38 individual direct
purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013;
and (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect
purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one
filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. All of
the pending U.S. federal cases in which the company has been named
as a defendant, have been filed in or have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the
name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-
MD-2196.

In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of
unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations. On April 15 and May
6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated
case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July
19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery
is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class certification
have been filed on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers.
A hearing on the motions was held January 15, 2014. On April 9,
2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect purchaser
classes. The company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal
from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. The Court has
held dates in October 2014 for the first trials, and will confer
with the parties' counsel in June to determine which will be the
first tried case.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Polyurethane Foam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated continues to face Canadian class
action cases for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane
foam products, 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.

The company has been named in two Canadian class action cases (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products),
both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164
(amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30,
2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive
damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the
costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class
action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam.
The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of
carpet underlay. The company is not yet required to file the
company's defenses in the Canadian actions. In addition, on July
10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and
indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option
Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada
Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice
(Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion
for authorization seeking to add the company and other
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this
case, which was granted.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Court Hears Motion to Certify Mo. Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of
Missouri are awaiting a ruling on their motion to certify a class
in a suit against Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, 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 June 22, 2012, the company was also made party to a lawsuit
brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis
Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the company
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon the
company's alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane
foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages,
punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. The
company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on
November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed
a motion for class certification. The parties' briefing is
completed, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 20,
2014.


LEWIS ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Aslin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Lewis Energy Group, L.P., Case No. 5:14-cv-00067 (S.D.
Tex., May 16, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from
Lewis Energy under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Lewis Energy is a Delaware limited partnership.  Lewis Energy is
"a vertically-integrated oil and gas company."  Lewis Energy
employed the Plaintiff as a mudlogger from approximately September
2009 through the present.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


MATTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernardo Calderon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Mattone Restaurant and Bar,
and Jason Korinek, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-03631 (N.D.
Ill., May 16, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees earned minimum
wage and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a week.

Mattone Restaurant and Bar is an entity doing business in
Illinois.  Jason Korinek is the owner and executive chef of
Mattone Restaurant and Bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raisa Alicea, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Junk Tex. Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. and other defendants in a securities
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion is
still pending before the court, 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 August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged
purchasers of the company's common stock filed purported class
action complaints against the company, Stephen M. Johnson and
Perry L. Elders in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to
represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock between
November 6, 2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading information and
failing to disclose material information relating to weaknesses in
project bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project
management and losses in each of the company's reporting segments.
Each complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory
damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs. By order
dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated the two
cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
substantially the same claims as were made in the two original
complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports
to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks
relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award
for attorneys' fees and other costs. On April 7, 2014, MII and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion
is still pending before the court.


MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA: Removed "Taylor" Suit to N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Taylor, et al. v.
Michelin North America, Inc., Case No. CJ-14-00042, was removed
from the Ottawa County District Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00293-JED-TLW to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims for property damage.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq.
          Centennial Plaza
          2575 Kelley Pointe Pkwy., Suite 100
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 330-9860
          Facsimile: (405) 231-4701

               - and -

          R. Chris Cowan, Esq.
          THE COWAN LAW FIRM
          209 Henry St.
          Dallas, TX
          Telephone: (214) 826-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 826-8900

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher J. Schmidt, Esq.
          Peter W. Herzog, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP (ST LOUIS)
          211 N Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
          E-mail: cjschmidt@bryancave.com
                  pwherzog@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Connie Mae Bryan, Esq.
          MCCORMICK & BRYAN PLLC
          3500 S Blvd., Suite 10B
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 562-6800
          Facsimile: (405) 216-3602
          E-mail: cbryan@mccormickbryan.com


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Contests Certification in "Markocki" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company is challenging the
certification of the suit Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC pending in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, according to
Old Republic International Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The
plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). A class
has been certified in the suit. ORNTIC is challenging the
certification based on more recent case precedents.


OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Yet in RESPA Violations Suits v. RMIC
------------------------------------------------------------
A class has not been certified in suits alleging violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by Republic Mortgage
Insurance Company and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases,
according to Old Republic International Corporation'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 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve
against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage
insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were
substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty
insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks'
captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in
violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been
dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs,
fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class
has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions
to dismiss the cases.


OVERSTOCK.COM INSURANCE: Sued Over Phone Calls' Illegal Recording
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Maghen; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Overstock.com Insurance Agency, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03818-PA-MAN (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2014) is brought for damages and
other relief resulting from the Company's alleged illegal actions
in employing certain recording equipment to record the telephone
conversations of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without their knowledge or consent.

Overstock.com Insurance Agency is a professional corporation
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com


PFIZER INC: Seeks to Quash Depositions of High-Ranking Executives
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that after drugmaker Pfizer Inc. moved to quash the
depositions of two high-ranking executives in litigation over
antidepressant Zoloft, the plaintiffs said that it is unlikely
that those executives wouldn't have relevant knowledge about the
large mass tort litigation.

Pfizer is seeking to quash the depositions of Dr. Joseph Feczko,
who was Pfizer's chief medical officer until his retirement five
years ago, and Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, Pfizer's senior vice
president of safety, established pharma & generic regulatory.
Among other arguments, Pfizer sought to apply the "apex doctrine,"
which protects executives at the top of the hierarchy of large
companies from having to give depositions if the plaintiffs don't
have good cause for deposing them.

The apex doctrine only applies if executives lack any knowledge of
the relevant facts, the plaintiffs said.

"Other [multidistrict litigation] MDL courts have rejected
attempts just like this to stop depositions of executives,
recognizing that where large numbers of products liability claims
are involved, it is unlikely that top executives will not have
relevant knowledge, and that the efficiencies of consolidated
discovery in multidistrict litigation obviate concerns about
harassment and abuse that might be present in individual actions,"
the lead lawyers on the plaintiffs steering committee --
Mark P. Robinson Jr. and Kevin F. Calcagnie, of Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif. and Dianne M.
Nast, of Nastlaw LLC in Philadelphia -- wrote in court papers.

Pfizer also has not made "even a minimal showing" that the
depositions would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
undue burden or expense, the plaintiffs also argued.

The reasons the plaintiffs give for Dr. Cavazzoni's and Dr.
Feczo's relevance are partially redacted in the court filing.
The MDL is pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


PUBLIX SUPER: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
April White and Bruce Bogach, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-01189 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2014) seeks to recover overtime
pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Publix Super Markets, Inc., is a Florida corporation registered to
do business in the state of Tennessee.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Yezbak, III, Esq.
          Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 240-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  mel@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Jerilyn Gardner, Esq.
          FRIED & BONDER, LLC
          White Provision, Suite 305
          1170 Howell Mill Road, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 995-8808
          Facsimile: (404) 995-8899
          E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com
                  jgardner@friedbonder.com

               - and -

          David Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 344-6690
          Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hugheshardin.com

               - and -

          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com


RONAN CITY, MT: Accused of Violating Class Members' Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Chaney, on behalf of himself and a class of persons
similarly situated v. Daniel Wadsworth, individually and as Ronan
Police Chief; Trevor Wadsworth; Kim Aipperspach, individually and
as City of Ronan Mayor; City of Ronan; City of Ronan Police
Department; and Does 1-10, Case No. 9:14-cv-00177-DLC (D. Mont.,
June 3, 2014) alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ann Sherwood, Esq.
          CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES
          P.O. Box 278
          Pablo, MT 59855
          Telephone: (406) 675-2700
          Facsimile: (406) 675-2700

               - and -

          Rebecca Kay Smith, Esq.
          PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENSE CENTER
          PO Box 7584
          317 East Spruce Street
          Missoula, MT 59807
          Telephone: (406) 531-8133
          Facsimile: (406) 830-3085
          E-mail: publicdefense@gmail.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
          BECHTOLD LAW FIRM
          PO Box 7051
          Missoula, MT 59807-7051
          Telephone: (406) 721-1435
          E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net


RSI ENTERPRISES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna F. Mavris, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated v. RSI Enterprises Incorporated, an Arizona Corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01058-NVW (D. Ariz., May 16, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Vega" Labor Litigation Settled, Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The labor suit Vega v. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC is now
concluded after an agreed settlement, according to Sensient
Technologies Corporation'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 3, 2013, Thomas Vega, a now former employee, filed (but
did not serve) a Class Action Complaint in San Francisco County
Superior Court against Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC. On
February 11, 2013, Vega filed and served a First Amended Complaint
("Complaint") against the Company and a Company supervisor. Vega
alleged that the Company failed to provide alleged class members
with meal periods, compensation for the alleged absence of meal
periods, and accurate wage statements, in violation of the
California labor code. The alleged class included all employees
paid on an hourly basis and forklift operators. The Complaint
sought damages, back wages, injunctive relief, penalties,
interest, and attorneys' fees for the members of the alleged
class. The Complaint alleged that the total damages and costs "do
not exceed a[n] aggregate of $4,999,999.99."

The Complaint alleged two causes of action. The first cause of
action was for "Unfair Competition." The second cause of action
was for alleged substantive violations of the California labor
code provisions governing wages, hours, and meal periods.

On March 13, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order to remove the case from San Francisco County
Superior Court to Stanislaus County Superior Court. On April 18,
2013, the Court granted that request.

On October 7, 2013, following a private mediation, the parties
signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which they agreed to
resolve the action for a maximum of $275,000 on a claims made
basis. On December 5, 2013, the settlement was presented to the
Stanislaus County Superior Court. On March 14, 2014, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement. On April 11, 2014,
Sensient made a final payment of $205,297 in full satisfaction of
the Final Funding Amount (as defined in the settlement agreement).
This matter has now concluded.


SOTHEBY'S INC: U.S. Artists Appeal Dismissal of Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's,
Inc. have appealed a ruling that dismissed the action on the
ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution, according to Sotheby's May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion
to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the
Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is
preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the
plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss.
The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March
12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing
the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have
appealed this ruling.


SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit Over "Proxy Puts"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court handling the coordinated lawsuits by The Employees
Retirement System of the City of St. Louis (versus Ruprecht, et
al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP, Del. Ch. 2014) and the Louisiana
Municipal Employees Retirement System denied plaintiff's motion
for preliminary injunctions, according to Sotheby's 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 April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of
St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of
Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint
against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The
plaintiff alleges in two counts that the Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-
called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The
plaintiff alleges that the Rights Plan is discriminatory, is
designed to entrench current board members, and undermines the
proxy contest being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the
plaintiff alleges that the Directors endorsed credit agreements
containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary,
preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from
proxy contests. The plaintiff seeks judgment preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily
enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before
they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a
declaration that the Rights Plan is unenforceable and that the
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v.
Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior
pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the
coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.


SOTHEBY'S INC: No Injunction Granted in Suit by La. Retirees
------------------------------------------------------------
The court handling the coordinated lawsuits by the Louisiana
Municipal Employees Retirement System (versus Ruprecht, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9508-VCP, Del. Ch. 2014) and The Employees
Retirement System of the City of St. Louis denied plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunctions, according to Sotheby's 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 April 3, 2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System,
the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's
stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the
Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleges
in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called "proxy
puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff
alleges that the Rights Plan is discriminatory, is designed to
entrench current board members, and undermines the proxy contest
being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleges
that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy
put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive
measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The
plaintiff seeks judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining
the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors
from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third
Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the
Rights Plan is unenforceable and that the Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the
Court ordered partial coordination of this action and The
Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht,
et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the prior pending action in
Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On
May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs'
motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions,
the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion.
Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bares Effect of Credit Card Antitrust Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Suntrust
Banks, Inc. detailed the effect on its finances of the settlement
entered in a consolidated antitrust suit against the Card
Associations.

The Company issues credit and debit transactions through Visa and
MasterCard International. The Company is a defendant, along with
Visa and MasterCard International (the "Card Associations"), as
well as several other banks, in one of several antitrust lawsuits
challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the
"Litigation"). The Company entered into judgment and loss sharing
agreements with Visa and certain other banks in order to apportion
financial responsibilities arising from any potential adverse
judgment or negotiated settlements related to the Litigation.
Additionally, in connection with Visa's restructuring in 2007, a
provision of the original Visa By-Laws, Section 2.05j, was
restated in Visa's certificate of incorporation. Section 2.05j
contains a general indemnification provision between a Visa member
and Visa, and explicitly provides that after the closing of the
restructuring, each member's indemnification obligation is limited
to losses arising from its own conduct and the specifically
defined Litigation.

Agreements associated with Visa's IPO have provisions that Visa
will fund a litigation escrow account, established for the purpose
of funding judgments in, or settlements of, the Litigation. Since
inception of the escrow account, Visa has funded over $8.5 billion
into the escrow account, approximately $4.1 billion of which has
been paid out in Litigation settlements and another $4.4 billion
which was paid into a settlement fund during 2012. If the escrow
account is insufficient to cover the Litigation losses, then Visa
will issue additional Class A shares ("loss shares"). The proceeds
from the sale of the loss shares would then be deposited in the
escrow account. The issuance of the loss shares will cause a
dilution of Visa's Class B shares as a result of an adjustment to
lower the conversion factor of the Class B shares to Class A
shares. Visa U.S.A.'s members are responsible for any portion of
the settlement or loss on the Litigation after the escrow account
is depleted and the value of the Class B shares is fully-diluted.
In May 2009, the Company sold its 3.2 million Class B shares to
the Visa Counterparty and entered into a derivative with the Visa
Counterparty. The Company received $112 million and recognized a
gain of $112 million in connection with these transactions.

Under the derivative, the Visa Counterparty is compensated by the
Company for any decline in the conversion factor as a result of
the outcome of the Litigation. Conversely, the Company is
compensated by the Visa Counterparty for any increase in the
conversion factor. The amount of payments made or received under
the derivative is a function of the 3.2 million shares sold to the
Visa Counterparty, the change in conversion rate, and Visa's share
price. The Visa Counterparty, as a result of its ownership of the
Class B shares, is impacted by dilutive adjustments to the
conversion factor of the Class B shares caused by the Litigation
losses. The conversion factor at the inception of the derivative
in May 2009 was 0.6296 and at March 31, 2014 the conversion factor
was 0.4206 due to Visa's funding of the litigation escrow account
since 2009. There were no changes to the conversion factor during
the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013; therefore, no
payments were made by the Company to the Visa Counterparty, other
than certain fixed payment charges which were less than $1 million
for both the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013.

During 2012, the Card Associations and defendants signed a
memorandum of understanding to enter into a settlement agreement
to resolve the plaintiffs' claims in the Litigation. Visa's share
of the claims represents approximately $4.4 billion, which was
paid from the escrow account into a settlement fund during 2012.
During 2013, various members of the putative class elected to opt
out of the settlement. This will result in a proportional decrease
in the amount of the settlement. While the estimated fair value of
the derivative liability was immaterial at March 31, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, the ultimate impact to the Company could be
significantly different if the settlement is not approved and/or
based on the ultimate resolution with the plaintiffs that opted
out of the settlement.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Suits v. STRH Remain After Lehman Accord
--------------------------------------------------------
A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions
remained following the class settlement of In re Lehman Brothers
Equity/Debt Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to
Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., along
with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants
in several individual and putative class action complaints filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and
Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false
and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and
preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases were
transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation
captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted
in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims
against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class
action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the
Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A
number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions
remained following the class settlement. STRH settled two such
individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed.
The appeal period for two of the individual actions will not
expire until the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have
been resolved.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Colonial BancGroup Stock Suit Partly Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted
in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss In re Colonial
BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to Suntrust
Banks, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain
other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial
BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial
BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain
debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28,
2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants'
motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court
subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This
amended complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in
part this motion.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Plaintiffs Pursue Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank is appealing the denial
of class certification in the suit, according to Suntrust Banks,
Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where
the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in
excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel
arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order
holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but
that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that
provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that
it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the
named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class
members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this
appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was
prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification and that motion was denied on
February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class
certification on February 26, 2014.


SUNTRUST BANKS: ERISA Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Security Act against Suntrust Banks, Inc. are appealing
the dismissal of their claims in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, 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.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December
9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for
the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for
immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District
Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May
8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The
Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings
in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26,
2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this
decision in the Circuit Court.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Claims in Mutual Funds Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's counsel in a suit alleging Suntrust Banks, Inc.
Violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering
certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options, filed a
motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case, 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 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and
seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a
subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the
ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all
claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel
initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company
substituting two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the
dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this
motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's
dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a
motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Mahdavieh" Suit Sent to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted a motion to transfer the case Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v.
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al. to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s
May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

STM has been named in three putative class actions similar to
those that other financial institutions are facing which allege
that the Company acted improperly in connection with the practice
of force placing homeowners' insurance in certain instances.
Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that STM
violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing
for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other
improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. The first
case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this
motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case,
Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et
al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to transfer the case. The Court granted the motion to
transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Updates on Mortgage Reinsurance Lawsuits v. STM
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Suntrust
Banks, Inc. provided updates on suits alleging violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
and Twin Rivers Insurance Company.

STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been
named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that
the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance"
arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically,
plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage
insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust
with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the
insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that
this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of
borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al.
v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The
second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v.
SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew
its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in
these cases were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily
dismissed this case. A motion to dismiss is pending in the
Thurmond case.


THORATEC CORP: Shareholders Have Until June to File Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360
will have until June 20, 2014 to file a consolidated amended class
action complaint, 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 29, 2014.

On January 24, 2014, the company and three of the company's
present and former officers were named as defendants in a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The action, entitled Cooper v.
Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a putative class action
brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities
between April 29, 2010, and November 27, 2013, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
the Company made false or misleading statements in the company's
financial reports, SEC filings and press releases regarding the
company's business and outlook, focusing primarily on the
Company's alleged failure to disclose that the HeartMate II Left
Ventricular Assist Device had a purported significant risk of pump
thrombosis. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, among other
relief. On April 21, 2014, the Court appointed Bradley Cooper as
Lead Plaintiff. Plaintiffs will have until June 20, 2014 to file a
consolidated amended class action complaint.


TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Yang" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Yang v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00054, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin Islands to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03538-FSH-
MAH to the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants, who
purchased the common stock of Tibet pursuant and traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a British Virgin Islands corporation,
through its operating subsidiaries, purports to engage in the
research, development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of
traditional Tibetan medicines in China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel H. Holt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOEL HOLT
          2132 Company Street, Suite 2
          St. Croix, VI 00820
          Telephone: (340) 773-8709
          Facsimile: (340) 773-8677
          E-mail: holtvi@aol.com

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (272) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

Defendant Hayden Zou is represented by:

          Israel Dahan, Esq.
          CADWALDER WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          One World Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 504-6000
          E-mail: israel.dahan@cwt.com


TOTAL FRAC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Moreno, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Total Frac Logistics, LLC, Sundance Services, and
Sundance Flow Back and Well Testing Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00166 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2014) is a civil action for the
collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988.

The proposed class members are those individuals that were
terminated without notice as the Plaintiff as part of the same
mass layoff.

Total Frac Logistics, LLC is a Texas Limited Liability Company.
Sundance Services is a Texas business operating for profit.
Sundance Flow Back and Well Testing Company is a Texas business
operating for profit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Securities Suit v. PSI Continues in Tenn. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric
Solutions, Inc. continues in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, according to Universal Health
Services, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29,
2014.

This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations
of federal securities laws. The company intends to defend the case
vigorously. Should the company be deemed liable in this matter, it
believes it would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries
for amounts paid by the company, subject to certain limitations
and deductibles. Included in the company's consolidated balance
sheets as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, is an estimated
reserve (current liability) and corresponding commercial insurance
recovery (current asset) which did not have a material impact on
the company's financial statements.


US BANK: Calif. Supreme Court Tosses $15-Mil. Overtime Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
California Supreme Court tossed a $15 million overtime award to
bank employees on May 29 because of a faulty statistical sample,
but justices were careful not to toss at-large reliance on
statistics in wage-and-hour class actions.

Business interests had hoped the court would use Duran v. U.S.
Bank National Association to limit plaintiffs attorneys' use of
statistical samples to generalize damages and liability over an
entire class.  Plaintiffs employment attorneys worried such limits
could destroy their cases.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Carol Corrigan cautiously
upheld reliance on statistical evidence and provided some
guidelines for its proper use.  She explicitly shied away from
making a "sweeping conclusion" that would remove sampling and
statistics as tools in class actions.

"Statistical sampling may provide an appropriate means of proving
liability and damages in some wage and hour class actions,"
Justice Corrigan wrote.  But "after a class has been certified,
the court's obligation to manage individual issues does not
disappear" and each plaintiff must still give some proof of his or
her claim.  Justice Goodwin Liu wrote a concurring opinion.
Employment lawyers on both sides seemed ready to claim the ruling
as a victory.

Kimberly Kralowec, who filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf
of the California Employment Lawyers Association, said the court
shot down U.S. Bank's claim that it should have a right to call
every class member individually to the stand.  "Essentially they
were arguing you never get to have a class action," she said.
Jones Day partner George Howard -- grhoward@jonesday.com -- an
employment defense lawyer, said the opinion would make it more
challenging to certify a class.  The court called on judges to
consider whether a class is manageable and can withstand trial,
not just whether all class members share a common issue.  It also
invited trial judges to decertify classes if individual issues
prove unmanageable.

"I just think this is going to inject some much-needed rigor into
this whole process," said Mr. Howard, who is not involved in the
case.  "It's no longer 'see if I can find a common issue and hope
that I get my case settled.'"

The 2001 suit alleged U.S. Bank had misclassified a group of
business banking officers as outside sales staff exempt from
overtime pay.  A central issue before the lower court was whether
the employees universally met the definition of outside sales
staff, which requires spending more than half of the workday
outside the office.

Both the majority and concurring opinions condemned the particular
statistical sample employed in Duran to resolve that question.
Judge Robert Freedman of Alameda County Superior Court used a
sample of 20 workers to determine that the entire 260-member class
had been improperly denied overtime and was entitled to $57,000
per person.

Judge Freedman developed his own sampling plan without expert
advice on minimizing the margin of error and "improperly
extrapolated liability findings from a small, skewed sample group
to the entire class," Justice Corrigan wrote.

The sample was not random, she concluded, as it included the two
named plaintiffs handpicked by lawyers and allowed some class
members originally selected for the sample to opt out.

Furthermore, Judge Freedman refused to consider declarations
submitted by U.S. Bank from 75 class members who said they spent
more than half their time working outside the office.

"This evidence suggested that work habits among [business banking
officers] were not uniform and that nearly one-third of the class
may have been properly classified as exempt and lacking any valid
claim against [U.S. Bank]," Justice Corrigan wrote.

Edward Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- of the Wynne Law Firm
in Greenbrae argued the case on behalf of the class in March;
Timothy Freudenberger -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com -- of Carothers
DiSante & Freudenberger argued for U.S. Bank.

Mr. Freudenberger did not respond to a phone message or email
requesting comment.

Mr. Wynne called the May 29 opinion more favorable than the
original court of appeal decision, which had dismissed the case
permanently. Corrigan's opinion instead remands the case for fresh
class certification proceedings and a new trial.

"We're really pleased," Mr. Wynne said.  "While it's regrettable
that the judgment wasn't upheld and the case was decertified, the
court has given us valuable guidance for getting the case
recertified."  Mr. Wynne hasn't ruled out using a statistical
model in round two of litigation.

"We're going to get the case certified again," he said.  "I see no
reason not to use statistical modeling again."


VISION ONE: "Reverie" Suit Moved From Washington to Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Reverie at Marcato Owners
Association v. Vision One LLC, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-06035, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:14-cv-01544-DSD-TNL to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.


VOSS LAW: Settles Paralegals' FLSA Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that four
paralegals and their former employer, The Voss Law Firm in the
Woodlands, have settled Naomi Valdez v. The Voss Law Firm, a Fair
Labor Standards Act lawsuit that the women filed against the firm,
alleging that it hadn't paid them overtime.

The firm and the four women filed a joint motion to dismiss all
claims on May 19.

Alex Mabry -- amabry@mabrylaw.com -- a partner in The Mabry Law
Firm in Houston, represents the plaintiffs.  He confirmed that
there was a settlement, saying, "My position is that paralegals
are entitled to overtime." He declined to comment further.

Scott Hunziker, the managing partner in The Voss Law Firm who
represents his firm in the litigation, confirmed the settlement
and said, "We were happy with the resolution of the case.
However, it is unfortunate that the current state of the law
allows disgruntled ex-employees to sue for allegedly working
overtime with literally no supporting evidence.  At day's end, the
deck is clearly stacked in favor of biting the hand that feeds
you."

In an Oct. 4, 2013, amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that
the firm "required and/or permitted plaintiffs to work in excess
of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them for such
overtime hours at the rate required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. ('FLSA').  Defendant's conduct
violated the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be
compensated for overtime work at a rate not less than one-and-one-
half times their regular rate."

In an answer filed Oct. 17, 2013, the defendant denied the
allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that the
plaintiffs were not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.


WALGREENS CO: Enters Into Conditional Settlement in Labeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Walgreens, Wal-Mart and nutritional supplement maker Perrigo have
reached a conditional settlement with consumers who filed a class
action alleging the companies misled them on the joint-healing
power of glucosamine and chondroitin.

Terms of the proposed settlement include $15 rebates for each
bottle purchased for those with receipts, $3 a bottle for those
without receipts, and up to $2 million for four plaintiffs' law
firms.  South Carolina-based Perrigo also agreed to stop, for at
least 24 months, labeling the supplements as good for
"rebuilding," "renewing," "regrowing," "growing," "adding," or
"regenerating," cartilage, as they had been described in marketing
and advertising for the products.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing, according to the tentative
settlement of Rosemary Quinn v. Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores, and
Perrigo Co., filed May 19 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Nine other similar putative class actions around the country have
been put on hold until the Quinn case is resolved. If it is, those
cases will be closed.  All had alleged violations of consumer
protection and business statutes.  The suits argued that a dozen
scientific studies have failed to show the supplements could
repair or regrow degenerated cartilage which causes the joint pain
and crippling effects of arthritis. The also contends that the
only studies that detected anything more than a placebo effect
were conducted more than a decade ago and were sponsored by the
supplements' manufacturers.

But a clause in the proposed settlement would allow Perrigo, if
new evidence is found to substantiate the claims of cartilage
regrowth or renewal, to seek agreement from the settlement class
counsel to modify the labeling.

The plaintiffs are represented by Greg Blankinship, of
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP; Elaine Ryan
-- eryan@bffb.com -- of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC;
and Stewart Weltman, of Stewart M. Weltman, LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Action by Minn. Retirement System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the suit City of Farmington Hills
Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., according
to Wells Fargo & Company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is involved in five separate pending
actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and
Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases
alleges that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties
by investing collateral for loaned securities in investments that
suffered losses. One of the cases, filed on March 27, 2012, is
composed of a class of Wells Fargo securities lending customers in
a case captioned City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement
System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April
12, 2014, the parties reached a settlement in principle of the
class action case. The settlement in principle is subject to Court
approval.


* Number of TCPA Class Action Filings in N.Y. Likely to Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Leichtman and Shane St. Hill of Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi, in an article for New York Law Journal, report that as a
result of recent U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions,
New York practitioners can expect increasing numbers of Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions to be filed in New
York, following the national trend.  The article will address
those recent decisions and describe issue-spotting for
practitioners litigating TCPA cases.

Introduction

New York federal courts have long held that because New York CPLR
Sec. 901(b) prohibits class actions for statutory damages, claims
brought under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, could not be brought
in New York federal courts as class actions.  Because the TCPA
included a statement that private parties can enforce it only "if
otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State," (47
U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(3)), the Second Circuit had held that CPLR
class action rules applied rather than FRCP 23.  Thus, until
recently, CPLR Sec. 901's prohibition on class treatment of
statutory damages claims applied to TCPA claims brought in New
York federal courts.  After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, 132 S. Ct. 140 (2012), however,
a pair of Second Circuit decisions in the second half of 2013
reversed course.  As a result, from mid-2013 to present, at least
14 TCPA class actions have already been filed in New York federal
courts.

The TCPA is a federal statute that was passed in the early 1990s
aimed at prohibiting telemarketing calls, faxes, and text messages
without prior consent.  The TCPA specifically provides for a
private right of action that, if successful, can result in awards
between $500 and $1,500 per violation.  Obviously, because
statutory damages can become very large when aggregated, large
scale electronic marketing campaigns, engaged in by both local and
national marketers, have made TCPA cases a popular class action
vehicle for the plaintiff's bar.  For example, in 2013 TCPA cases
in California and Washington state against Bank of America and
Papa John's, respectively, settled for $32 and $16.5 million. But
there was potentially billions in exposure in these cases.

Until now, such class actions could not be brought in New York.
What changed and why?

'Mims' and The Second Circuit Response

In 2012, the Supreme Court got involved in a growing circuit split
over whether federal subject matter jurisdiction existed for TCPA
claims.  While the Second Circuit had held that there was no
federal subject matter jurisdiction, other circuit and district
courts had found such jurisdiction existed.  In Mims, the Supreme
Court ruled that the "permissive grant of jurisdiction to state
courts" in the TCPA did not preclude "federal courts' exercise of
the general federal question jurisdiction they have possessed
since 1875." 132 S. Ct. at 745.  The court also found that federal
law provides the rules of decision in TCPA cases.

Before Mims, the Second Circuit's view was that state law provided
the rules of decision in TCPA cases, and it thus had held that
state statutes of limitations rather than the federal four-year
catch-all statute of limitations applied to TCPA claims.  At the
time Mims was decided, a petition for certiorari was pending from
a Second Circuit decision applying Connecticut's two-year statute
of limitations in a TCPA case. Giovanniello v. ALM Media, 660 F.3d
587 (2d. Cir. 2011), vacated and remanded, 133 S. Ct. 159 (2012),
reversed in part, 726 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013).  In light of Mims,
the Supreme Court vacated and remanded to the Second Circuit,
which found its prior jurisprudence on this issue was incorrect
holding that the federal four-year statute of limitations applied
instead of the shorter state law limitations period.

Since Giovanniello was a Connecticut case, the question of the
permissibility of class actions in New York was not at issue.
However, a few months later, the Second Circuit had the
opportunity to review the New York class action question in light
of Mims. In Bank v. Independence Energy Group, 736 F.3d 660 (2d
Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit decided whether a plaintiff's TCPA
class action was properly dismissed by the E.D.N.Y. in reliance on
the CPLR The Second Circuit noted that "[t]he Supreme Court's
decision in Mims . . . uprooted much of our TCPA jurisprudence,"
and held that New York State's procedural rule prohibiting class
action claims for statutory damages no longer prohibits class
actions for damages being brought under the TCPA in New York
federal courts. Id. at 661. Open the floodgates.

Issues Frequently Arising in TCPA Cases

Now that the New York courts are open to TCPA class actions,
New York practitioners litigating TCPA cases need to be aware of a
host of issues that have come up in other jurisdictions.  The
following outlines some of the most important ones to watch for --
and while not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of each
issue (each of which could fill tomes on their own) -- aims to
provides an "issue spotting" checklist for litigating TCPA class
actions.

FCC regulations and guidance: Binding or not? While the TCPA is
statutory, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a
statutory mandate to enact regulations and to provide guidance on
interpreting those regulations and the statute. See 47 C.F.R.
64.1200. Some have been the subject of the formal federal
rulemaking process and therefore have the force of law, but some
are merely persuasive authority, although some courts have held
FCC enforcement guidelines should not be taken into account.  The
practice point here is not to take for granted that a given
regulation or policy statement deserves deference by the court --
each piece of guidance from the FCC should be carefully vetted
before relying on it, whether for the plaintiff or defense.
Unsolicited advertising, existing business relationships, scope of
consent, the recent changes to Federal regulations, and the impact
on class certification. Without attempting to parse all of the
statutory text and regulations that may apply in a given case
here, the bulk of TCPA cases turn on several key issues.

First, often the defendant will allege that a given communication
is not an advertisement, but is merely an "informational
communication," which is not subject to the TCPA at all.  Courts
take a broad view of what constitutes an advertisement, however,
including any information that promotes a company's goods and
services, even if they are offered for free or the communication
is simply meant to induce the recipient to take some action like
coming into the defendant's business.

Next, cases involving communications made before October 2013
often turned on whether the "existing business relationship"
exception applied. That exception permitted certain types of
communications to be sent, even without express permission of the
recipient, if the parties had a pre-existing business
relationship. This exception is not in the statute itself, but was
contained within one of the binding FCC regulations.  The FCC,
however, removed this exception in a regulation change that became
effective on Oct. 16, 2013.

The focus of the new regulations is on what constitutes "consent."
This is probably the most litigated issue in TCPA cases.  While it
would seem that whether someone consented to receiving a
communication ought to be a simple issue, all kinds of
circumstances can give rise to arguments about whether a
particular act is sufficient to provide consent.  The new FCC
regulations have tried to clarify, and make stricter, what
constitutes "consent" for post-October 2013 communications.  Under
the new rules, consent means "prior express written consent" that
has not been withdrawn, which means that inferential consent
wrought from the voluntary provision of contact information can no
longer be argued.  The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous,
and consent cannot be a condition for making a purchase. The
recipient's signature is required (although it can be an
electronic signature).

For example, if a customer signs up for a store credit card or
loyalty program, and the program guidelines inform the customer
they may receive solicitations as a result of signing up for the
program, that has been held to be sufficient consent by some
courts.  In a given case, however, a customer may claim that she
did not intend to sign up for the program at issue.  Other issues
that can arise include whether the communications sent exceed the
scope of the consent.  For instance, in a recently settled case
against the Buffalo Bills in Florida, the plaintiff argued that
when class members signed up for the messaging service at issue,
the terms and conditions of the service at sign up said the
messages would be limited to three to five per week.  Plaintiff
alleged he received more than five messages per week "routinely."
A motion to dismiss was pending when the case settled.  Similarly,
in a case brought against the Los Angeles Lakers, the issue was
whether, after a consumer opted out, a confirmatory message that
acknowledged the request for the opt out violated the TCPA.  A
motion to dismiss was granted but appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
where the case was settled prior to an appellate decision.
The question of consent can often dictate whether a class action
is certified.  Whether individualized inquiries are necessary into
whether each class member consented can often predominate over
other common issues, so this has become a frequently litigated
issue.

What technology counts as an "automatic telephone dialing system"
(ATDS)? The reach of the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A) is
meant to cover communications that intrude on the privacy of
people's lives and harm them with unanticipated bills.  When
passed in 1991, we lived in a very different communications era,
when home or cell phone bills contained charges for each call made
or received.  Smartphones, which many people now use exclusively,
did not exist.  Many TCPA cases thus involve the question of what
constitutes an ATDS under the statute.

There is no dispute that calling systems that generate random
numbers of people in the general citizenry who are not already
customers of a business for marketing purposes falls within the
statutory definition.  But in the Lakers case, for example, one
issue was whether the text messages at issue constituted use of an
ATDS because the numbers were not randomly generated and were only
sent to people who gave the Lakers their number.  In another
recent decision, Yahoo! was dismissed from TCPA liability by a
district court where it sent individualized messages via its
opt-in texting service, even though the recipient had
unsuccessfully tried to opt out of the program.  Courts are thus
increasingly reviewing TCPA claims to determine whether the
context of the communications at issue fall within what the
statute truly intended to cover, requiring more than bare
pleading.

Insurance coverage. It is important for practitioners to work with
their clients to determine if there is any insurance coverage
available to cover defense and liability costs for TCPA claims.
Complex coverage issues are beyond the scope of this note, but
coverage can turn on whether the damages at issue are deemed to be
punitive (usually not insurable) or remedial (usually insurable).
Some recent Illinois state court decisions have found TCPA damage
claims to be insurable remedial remedies, but one federal court in
New York recently denied coverage in a TCPA case for a variety of
reasons pertaining to the specific policy clauses at issue in that
case.

Conclusion

New York practitioners can expect the New York dockets to grow as
a result of the recent appellate rulings permitting TCPA class
action claims in our courts.  The above provides some issues to
consider as the body of law grows in our circuit.

David Leichtman -- dleichtman@rkmc.com -- is a partner at Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in New York, where he practices in the
intellectual property litigation and business litigation groups.
Shane St. Hill -- ssthill@rkmc.com -- is an associate at the firm.


                      Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Had 3,200 Fibro Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 3,200 cases that alleged asbestos-related injuries
were pending against Graybar Electric Company, 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: "With respect to asbestos litigation, as of
December 31, 2013, approximately 3,200 individual cases and 67
multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or
potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or
exposure to products allegedly sold by us. Additional claims will
likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers
have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with
respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so.
Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and
unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our
insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability
are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and
settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the
litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law
governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury
verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and
bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because any of these
factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable and it is
possible that we may incur costs that would have a material
adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of
operations in future periods."

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., is a distributor of electrical
products in the US. The employee-owned company distributes more
than 1 million electrical, communications, and data networking
products through a network of around 240 distribution facilities.
Its diversified lineup includes a myriad of wire, cable, and
lighting products from thousands of manufacturers and suppliers.
It also offers supply chain management and logistics services.
Affiliate Graybar Financial Services provides equipment leasing
and financing. Graybar Electric sells to construction contractors,
industrial plants, power utilities, and telecommunications
providers, primarily in the US.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bel Fuse Settles Becker v. Adience Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bel Fuse Inc. said the asbestos lawsuit captioned Richard G.
Becker vs. Adience Inc., et al, was settled, 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, through its subsidiary Cinch Connectors Inc., is a
defendant in an asbestos lawsuit captioned Richard G. Becker vs.
Adience Inc., et al. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court
for the County of Wayne in the State of Michigan. The complaint
was amended to include Cinch Connectors Inc. and other defendants
on August 13, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the complaint
on October 19, 2012. This case was settled for a de minimis amount
on September 25, 2013.

Bel Fuse Inc. (Bel) is a producer of electronic products. The
Company designs, manufactures and markets an array of magnetics,
modules, circuit protection devices and interconnect products.
These products are designed to protect, regulate, connect, isolate
or manage a variety of electronic circuits. Bel's products are
primarily used in the networking, telecommunications, computing,
military, aerospace and transportation industries. Bel's portfolio
of products also finds application in the automotive, medical and
consumer electronics markets. Its magnetic products include
MagJack integrated connector modules, power transformers and
discrete components. Its modules products include power conversion
modules and integrated modules. Its circuit protection products
include miniature, subminiature and micro fuses, and positive
temperature coefficient (PTC) devices. In August 2013, Bel Fuse
Inc. acquired privately-held Array Connector Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Records ARO for Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc., says it recorded
conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos
removal, 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 a liability for a conditional asset
retirement obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an
asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of
settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be
within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation
can be reasonably estimated. Depending on the age of the
construction, certain properties in our portfolio may contain non-
friable asbestos. If these properties undergo major renovations or
are demolished, certain environmental regulations are in place,
which specify the manner in which the asbestos, if present, must
be handled and disposed. Based on our evaluation of the physical
condition and attributes of certain of our properties, we recorded
conditional asset retirement obligations related to asbestos
removal. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the liability in our
consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset retirement
obligations was $0.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively. The
accretion expense related to asbestos removal was $0.05 million
and $0.04 million for the years ended December, 2013 and 2012,
respectively."

Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment
trust (REIT). The Company owns and operates primarily
institutional-quality office properties principally in Hawaii and
southern California. As of December 31, 2011, the Company owned
six office properties consisting of approximately 1.5 million
rentable square feet and interests (ranging from 5% to
approximately 32%) in 17 joint venture properties (including a
sports club associated with its City Square property in Phoenix,
Arizona), of which the Company has managing ownership interests in
13, consisting of approximately 2.9 million rentable square feet.
The Company owns and operates office properties in the western
United States. The Company focuses on the markets in Honolulu and
the western United States mainland (in particular, southern
California and the greater Phoenix metropolitan area). The Company
operates in two segments: (Honolulu and the Western United States
mainland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $50MM Reserves for A&E Loss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity plc's gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental loss was $50,155,000, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company has exposure to asbestos & environmental ("A&E")
claims. The asbestos exposure primarily arises from the sale of
product liability insurance, and the environmental exposure arises
from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril
insurance. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management
considers facts currently known and the current state of the law
and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for known
claims (including the cost of related litigation) when sufficient
information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a
specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably estimate
its liability. In addition, liabilities have been established to
cover additional exposures on both known and unasserted claims.
Estimates of the liabilities are reviewed and updated regularly.
Case law continues to evolve for such claims, and significant
uncertainty exists about the outcome of coverage litigation and
whether past claim experience will be representative of future
claim experience. Included in net unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses as of December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 were
IBNR reserves of $18.2 million, $14.6 million, and $26.2 million,
respectively, and case reserves of approximately $4.8 million,
$5.5 million, and $3.6 million, respectively, for known A&E-
related claims.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company's gross reserves
for A&E loss was $50,155,000.

Establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves
more judgment than other types of claims due to, among other
things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy
filings as a result of asbestos-related liabilities, and judicial
interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden
the scope of coverage. The insurance industry continues to receive
a substantial number of asbestos-related bodily injury claims,
with an increasing focus being directed toward other parties,
including installers of products containing asbestos rather than
against asbestos manufacturers. This shift has resulted in
significant insurance coverage litigation implicating applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including but not
limited to, determinations as to whether or not an asbestos-
related bodily injury claim is subject to aggregate limits of
liability found in most comprehensive general liability policies.

In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies was dismissed
from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated
insurance companies. The suit involved issues related to
approximately 3,900 existing asbestos-related bodily injury claims
and future claims. The dismissal was the result of a settlement of
a disputed claim related to accident year 1984. The settlement is
conditioned upon certain legal events occurring which may trigger
financial obligations by the insurance company. One such event is
the confirmation of a Plan involving an asbestos trust established
under the bankruptcy code and funded in part by settlement
proceeds. On February 24, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of California (District Court) issued a
Memorandum Re Confirmation of a Revised Plan following a remand
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The confirmation of the
Revised Plan includes an injunction under 11 U.S.C. Section 524(g)
(US bankruptcy code) related to the suit. The injunction, also
called a "channeling injunction," precludes, among other things,
non-settling insurers from asserting claims against one of the
Company's insurance companies and asbestos related claims by third
parties against one of the Company's insurance companies that are
related to the named insured. The most recent ruling may be
subject to an appeal by the non-settling insurer group. Management
will continue to monitor the developments of the litigation to
determine if any additional financial exposure is present.

As of December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, the survival ratio on a
gross basis for the Company's open A&E claims was 11.3 years, 11.3
years, and 8.9 years, respectively. As of December 31, 2013, 2012,
and 2011, the survival ratio on a net basis for the Company's open
A&E claims was 6.7 years, 7.0 years, and 6.4 years, respectively.
The survival ratio, which is the ratio of gross or net reserves to
the 3-year average of annual paid claims, is a financial measure
that indicates how long the current amount of gross or net
reserves are expected to last based on the current rate of paid
claims.

Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company.
Global Indemnity is a property and casualty insurers in the
industry, provides its insurance products across a distribution
network-binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance.
The Company manages the distribution of these products in two
segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The
Company offers property and casualty insurance products in the
excess and surplus lines marketplace through its Insurance
Operations and provides third party treaty reinsurance for writers
of excess and surplus and specialty lines of property and casualty
insurance through its Reinsurance Operations. The Company's
subsidiaries include United National Insurance Company, Penn-
America Insurance Company and Penn-Star Insurance Company; Diamond
State Insurance Company and United National Casualty Insurance
Company; United National Specialty Insurance Company and Penn-
Patriot Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 173 Fibro Cases Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 173 asbestos-related cases pending against CECO
Environmental Corp., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2013
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7 million
which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately
$25,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 173 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2013 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 153 cases that were pending as of January
1, 2013. During the current fiscal year commencing January 1, 2013
through December 31, 2013, 48 new cases were filed against the
Company, and the Company was dismissed from 32 cases and settled
zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the
early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on
schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company
believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases
currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) is a provider of global, air
pollution control technology. The Company operates as a provider
of air pollution control technology, products and services through
three principal product groups, including Engineered Equipment
Technology and Parts Group, Contracting/Services Group and
Component Parts Group. Its Engineered Equipment Technology and
Parts Group produces various types of air pollution control
technology and equipment. Its Contracting/Services Group, which
produces air pollution control and engineered industrial
ventilation systems and its Component Parts Group, which
manufactures products used by the Company and other air pollution
control companies and air system contractors. In March 2013, it
announced the acquisition of Aarding Thermal Acoustics B.V. In
August 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the
acquisition of Met-Pro Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 269 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in approximately 269
cases asserting asbestos-related personal injury claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 269
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 609 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes
of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining
two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount
of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally,
we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos
cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because
the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of
the plaintiff's injury, if any.

Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business
primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary,
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). It is an industrial supply
chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating
in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and
Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies provides the Company's
customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of
specialty production components. Its Aluminum Products business
manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, and the
Company's Manufactured Products business is a manufacturer of
engineered industrial products. The Company's businesses serve
industrial original equipment manufacturers in a variety of
industrial sectors. On March 26, 2012, it acquired Fluid Routing
Solutions Inc. In April 2013, the Company Fluid Routing Solutions
(FRS) business acquired all of the assets of Bates Acquisition LLC
and Bates Real Estate Acquisition, LLC.


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

The Company states: "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during
2012, we secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse
the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of our
former operating unit relating to these claims. We intend to
vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we
defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a provider of power
generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the
domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and
service industries. The Company, along with its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and auxiliary
power equipment primarily used in the operation of gas turbine
power plants, as well as for other industrial and power-related
applications. The Company operates in two segments. Its Products
Division designs, engineers and manufactures products worldwide
for the gas turbine power generation, energy and process
industries. Its Services Division provides industrial services,
focusing on specialty services, outage management and overhaul of
nuclear power facilities and other heavy industrial plants. In May
2013, the Company acquired Hetsco, Inc. In July 2013, Global Power
Equipment Group Inc. announced that it has acquired privately-
owned IBI, LLC (IBI Power).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits associated with previously acquired business
operations, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2013.

The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants,
in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned.
During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products. For such claims, the Company is
either contractually indemnified against liability, or
contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser of
these former Magnetek business operations.  With respect to these
claims, the Company is uninsured, but management believes that it
has no such liability and the Company aggressively seeks dismissal
from these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations. Given the nature of the issues, uncertainty of the
ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no
amounts have been reserved for these matters.

Magnetek, Inc. (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control
systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in
material handling, elevator, and mining applications. The
Company's products are sold directly or through manufacturers'
representatives to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for
incorporation into their products, to system integrators and
value-added resellers for assembly and incorporation into end-user
systems, to distributors for resale to OEMs and contractors, and
to end users for repair and replacement purposes. The Company is
an independent supplier of digital drives, radio controls,
software, and accessories for industrial cranes and hoists, and it
is also the supplier of digital direct current (DC) motion control
systems for elevators. The Company's products consist primarily of
programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used in
the overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; and coal mining
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Shipholding Had $299MM Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Shipholding Corporation had approximately $299
million in reserves for lawsuits primarily related to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in numerous
lawsuits claiming damages related to occupational diseases,
primarily related to asbestos and hearing loss. We believe that
most of these claims are without merit, and that insurance and the
indemnification of a previous owner of one of our subsidiaries may
mitigate our exposure. Based on consultation with outside legal
counsel, we have estimated our current overall exposure to the
lawsuits in question, after considering insurance coverage for
these claims, to be approximately $299,000,000. We believe those
estimates are reasonable and have established reserves
accordingly. Our reserves for these lawsuits as of December 31,
2013 and 2012 were approximately $299,000,000 and $650,000,000
respectively. There is a reasonable possibility that there will be
additional claims associated with occupational diseases asserted
against us. However, we do not believe that it is reasonably
possible that our exposure from those claims will be material
because (1) the lawsuits filed since 1989 claiming damages related
to occupational diseases in which we have been named as a
defendant have primarily involved seamen that served on-board our
vessels and the number of such persons still eligible to file a
lawsuit against us is diminishing and (2) we believe such
potential additional claims, if pursued, would be covered under
either or both of (i) an indemnification agreement with a previous
owner of one of our subsidiaries or (ii) one or more of our
existing insurance policies with deductibles ranging from $1,500
to $25,000 per claim."

International Shipholding Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
operates a diversified fleet of United States and international
flag vessels that provide international and domestic maritime
transportation services to commercial and governmental customers
primarily under medium to long-term time charters or contracts of
affreightment. As of March 2, 2012, the Company owned or operated
38 ocean-going vessels. The Company operates in five segments:
Time Charter Contracts - U.S. Flag, Time Charter Contracts -
International Flag, Contracts of Affreightment (COA), Rail-Ferry
Service, and Other. In February 2012, the Company completed a sale
and leaseback transaction for its 2007-built Pure Car Truck
Carrier, Green Bay. In March 2012, the Company sold two of its
International Flag Pure Car Truck Carriers, ASIAN KING and ASIAN
EMPEROR, to Norwegian Car Carriers ASA. In October 2012, it
purchased a Pure Car Truck Carrier (PCTC). In November 2012, it
acquired United Ocean Services, LLC (UOS).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 1,130 Pending PI Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,130 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against
a subsidiary of Valhi, 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: "NL Industries, Inc., has 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 NL's 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 NL. 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."

Valhi, Inc. is a holding company. It operates in three segments:
Chemicals, Component Products and Waste Management. The Company's
chemicals segment is operated through Kronos Worldwide, Inc.,
which is a global producer and marketer of titanium dioxide
pigment (TiO2). The Company operates in the component products
industry through its majority control of CompX International Inc.
Waste Control Specialists LLC is the Company's subsidiary, which
operates a West Texas facility for the processing, treatment,
storage and disposal of a range of low-level radioactive,
hazardous, toxic and other wastes. The Company operates through
its wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, including NL
Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc.
and Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS). In July of 2011, CompX
International Inc. acquired 100% of the stock of a Canadian
ergonomic component products company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,319 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had 8,319 pending asbestos 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.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid
subsidiary ("Asbestos Liability") and of an inactive subsidiary in
dissolution. During 2013, all pending claims against the inactive
subsidiary in dissolution were settled, dismissed or barred and
the dissolution court issued a final order thereby concluding the
dissolution proceedings. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often
in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company disclosed a
$22,618,000 of gross settlement and defense costs and, 8,319
pending claims.

A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period.

Asbestos Insurance

The Corporation and its Air & Liquid subsidiary are parties to a
series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with
insurers that have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability
(the "Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the
Settling Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the
terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including
overall coverage limits, for pending and future claims for
Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements encompass the
substantial majority of insurance policies that provide coverage
for claims for Asbestos Liability.

The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden
North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products"). The
Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on
access to the applicable policies or any sublimits of liability as
to Howden or the Corporation and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly,
Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers
for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access
by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for
the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement Agreements
available to the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos
Liability.

On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and Air & Liquid filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance
companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain
London market insurance companies, and Howden. The lawsuit seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and
obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies that
were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as respects
claims against the Corporation and its subsidiary for Asbestos
Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against
Howden arising from the Products. The Corporation and Air & Liquid
have reached Settlement Agreements with all but two of the
defendant insurers in the coverage action. Those Settlement
Agreements specify the terms and conditions upon which the insurer
parties are to contribute to defense and indemnity costs for
claims for Asbestos Liability. One of the Settlement Agreements
entered into by the Corporation and Air & Liquid also provided for
the dismissal of claims, without prejudice, regarding two upper-
level excess policies issued by one of the insurers. The Court has
entered Orders dismissing all claims in the action filed against
each other by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, on the one hand,
and by the settling insurers, on the other. Howden also reached an
agreement with eight domestic insurers addressing asbestos-related
bodily injury claims arising from the Products, and claims as to
those insurers and Howden have been dismissed. Various
counterclaims, cross claims and third party claims have been filed
in the litigation and remain pending although only two domestic
insurers and Howden remain in the litigation as to the Corporation
and Air & Liquid. On September 27, 2013, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part
cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Corporation and
Air & Liquid, Howden, and the insurer parties still in the
litigation. The September 27, 2013 ruling is not a final ruling
for appellate purposes, but when final it could be appealed by the
parties to the litigation.

Asbestos Valuations

In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in
estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted
future claims for Asbestos Liability. HR&A was not requested to
estimate asbestos claims against the inactive subsidiary in
dissolution, which the Corporation believes are immaterial. Based
on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as at December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time. Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2012, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as at December 31, 2012 for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2022. The methodology
used by HR&A in its projection in 2012 of the operating
subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential
future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the
same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates,
relied upon and included the following factors:

* HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases;

* HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2010 to December 20, 2012;

* an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

* an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2010 to
December 20, 2012 to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2012 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2022, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2022. This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors. These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with
a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2022. Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2012 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022
was $181,022, of which approximately 73% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2022 and future defense costs. The reserve at December 31,
2013 was $158,293. While it is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the
Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide
for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the
nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2022.
Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may
be incurred after 2022.

The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2012 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2012, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was $118,115. The Corporation updated its
receivable at September 30, 2013 to take into account the effect
of the Settlement Agreements reached in August 2013. The effect of
these Settlement Agreements was to increase the Corporation's
receivable for insurance recoveries attributable to claims for
which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been
established by $16,340.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded
$110,741 asbestos-related insurance receivables.

The insurance receivable recorded by the Corporation does not
assume any recovery from insolvent carriers or carriers not party
to a Settlement Agreement, and a substantial majority of the
insurance recoveries deemed probable was from insurance companies
rated A - (excellent) or better by A.M. Best Corporation. There
can be no assurance, however, that there will not be further
insolvencies among the relevant insurance carriers, or that the
assumed percentage recoveries for certain carriers will prove
correct. The difference between insurance recoveries and projected
costs is not due to exhaustion of all insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability. The Corporation and the subsidiaries have
substantial additional insurance coverage which the Corporation
expects to be available for Asbestos Liability claims and defense
costs that the subsidiaries and it may incur after 2022. However,
this insurance coverage also can be expected to have gaps creating
significant shortfalls of insurance recoveries as against claims
expense, which could be material in future years.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for Asbestos Liabilities
and insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on
currently known facts and strategy. The Corporation's actual
expenses or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or
lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Corporation's
or HR&A's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key
variables in these assumptions are identified and include the
number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such new claim, average annual defense
costs, compliance by relevant parties with the terms of the
Settlement Agreements, the resolution of remaining coverage issues
with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the
relevant insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the
Corporation's Asbestos Liability and ability to recover under its
insurance policies include uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and
the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation.

The Corporation intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos
Liability and related insurance receivables as well as the
underlying assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any
adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the
uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these
regular reviews may result in the Corporation incurring future
charges; however, the Corporation is currently unable to estimate
such future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Corporation's
estimate of its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance
receivables could be material to operating results for the periods
in which the adjustments to the liability or receivable are
recorded, and to the Corporation's liquidity and consolidated
financial position.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls
segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union
Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment
includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all
divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces
highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users,
including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial
process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling
makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial,
institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric
Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in
cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals
throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 132 Pending Cases as of February 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 132 asbestos cases pending in Texas and Pennsylvania
against GenCorp Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2014.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 132 asbestos cases pending as of February
28, 2014.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. GenCorp Unit Remains Pending in La.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against GenCorp Inc. remains pending in Louisiana,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
February 28, 2014.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company, received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the
successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of
Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne subsidiary, for
Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the defense of sixteen asbestos
cases, involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and
reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and
expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet Rocketdyne retained those
liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to
indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase
agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified
liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the
sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing
liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the
purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against
it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet Rocketdyne declined
to accept the liability and requested additional information from
AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC
filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet
Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction
Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No.
342013001424718. Although AMEC served the complaint on Aerojet
Rocketdyne, Aerojet Rocketdyne was granted an open extension of
time in which to file a response in order to facilitate additional
sharing of information and potential settlement negotiations. No
estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of
February 28, 2014.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $129MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was $129
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

* The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

* The number of claims filed against us will decline each year.

* The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted claims
will be equivalent to historical averages.

* The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
equivalent to historical averages.

Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 20% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 80% related to
unasserted claims at March 31, 2014.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, our asbestos-related
liability was $129 million.

We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at March 31, 2014, and December
31, 2013.

We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its
principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links
23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific
Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.
Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the
United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems
division of Ansaldo STS USA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Continues to Fund NARCO Trust
--------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to be obligated to fund the
trust created for asbestos-related claims against a company once
owned by Honeywell's predecessors, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On January 4, 2002, North American Refractories Company ("NARCO")
filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the filing of NARCO's petition
in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued an injunction staying the prosecution of
NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company, which stayed in
place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case. In November 2007, the
Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization and it became fully effective on April 30, 2013.

In connection with implementation of the NARCO Plan of
Reorganization, a federally authorized 524(g) trust was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust will
review submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance
with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the
Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet
to qualify for compensation including, among other things,
exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In
addition, Honeywell will continue to provide input to the detailed
controls design of the NARCO Trust, and has on-going audit rights
to review and monitor claims processor's adherence to the
established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
as a means of detecting and deterring irregularities in claims.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, Honeywell agreed to
certain obligations which were triggered upon the effective date
of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. As agreed, during the second
quarter of 2013, Honeywell provided NARCO with $17 million in
financing and simultaneously forgave such indebtedness. Honeywell
also paid $40 million to NARCO's former parent company and $16
million to certain asbestos claimants whose claims were fully
resolved during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings.

Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution
Procedures, subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years
2014 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter,
provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed
through the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not
count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of
the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized.

Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding
obligations which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously
approved payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement
agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings which provide that a portion of these settlements is
to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130
million and are expected to be paid during the first year of trust
operations ($91 million of which was paid in 2013 and $6 million
of which was paid in the first quarter of 2014 with an additional
$10 million of which has been approved and will be paid in the
second quarter of 2014) and, b) payments due to claimants pursuant
to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims
to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria,
which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be
paid during the first two years of trust operations.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for the amounts, unsettled claims pending
as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the
uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in
connection with the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well
as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place
throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have
a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond
2018. In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base
the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including
trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities
based on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing
rates, expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values.
Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of
the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing
products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims
filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort
system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims
experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO
asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in
the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate
of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to
estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly
accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts
and resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to
$961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a
better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have
recorded the minimum amount in the range.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is
probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and
estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our
insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers.

Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no
assurance that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether
there will be any NARCO-related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given
the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review
our estimates periodically, and update them based on our
experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will
reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance
recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or
other developments that may impact insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In
September 2013, Honeywell International Inc announced that it has
completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc, a provider of mobile
computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice-
enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing
solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 12,884 Unresolved Bendix Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., had 12,884 unresolved Bendix-related
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company's states: "Our consolidated financial statements
reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims
actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future
Bendix-related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and
future claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter
each year.

The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future
NARCO-related asbestos claims liability.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance
receivables equal to approximately 36 percent of the value of the
underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are
gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies,
certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is
expected to decline for any future Bendix-related asbestos
liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may
also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future
insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations
relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict.
Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current
levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could
decline over the next five years to approximately 30 percent.

Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the "Variable Claims Factors") do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In
September 2013, Honeywell International Inc announced that it has
completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc, a provider of mobile
computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice-
enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing
solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Reports $200,000 Litigation Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. said its expenses for asbestos-related
litigation was $200,000, net of insurance recoveries, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not
material to the periods presented.

Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades. A substantial majority of asbestos-
related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of
indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of
our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not
material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for
asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance;
however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for
asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors and are
subject to policy limits. As a result, we may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the
three months ended March 31, 2014, and 2013, expenses for
asbestos-related litigation were $0.2 million and $0.6 million,
net of insurance recoveries, respectively.

It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Records $254.1-Mil. Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Ltd.'s estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was
$254.1 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 29, 2014.

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

As of March 29, 2014, there were approximately 2,100 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of
March 29, 2014. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are
not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or
duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our
current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us,
our affiliates or entities for which we assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the
amount does not include certain claims pending against third
parties for which we have been provided an indemnification.

Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $254.1
million and $254.7 million as of March 29, 2014 and December 31,
2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $119.3 million and $119.6
million as of March 29, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively,
and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $2.31-Bil. Net Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had $2.31 billion net asbestos
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2014.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a
number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements).

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first quarter of
2014 were $45 million, compared with $43 million in the same
period of 2013. Net asbestos reserves were $2.31 billion at March
31, 2014, compared with $2.33 billion at March 31, 2013.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products
that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the
Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers
Companies, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $829.5-Mil Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters was
$829.5 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either IR-New Jersey or Trane
U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure
to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-
New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or
manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured
products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets
and packings purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

* the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

* the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

* the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to
file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company
based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

* an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

* an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to
determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims,
by type of disease claimed;

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

* an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, over 80 percent of the
open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of
which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the
vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against
the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal
and judicial treatment of such claims.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company's liability for asbestos-related
matters was $829.5 million and the asset for probable asbestos-
related insurance recoveries was $316.9 million.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $135.0 million and $181.9 million at March
31, 2014, and $137.6 million and $184.2 million at December 31,
2013, respectively.

The cost associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries for the three months
ended March 31, 2014, was $3.1 million.

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of March 31, 2014. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's
unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims
that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding
defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery,
and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013, IR-New
Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an insurer
that was not a party to the 2012 action.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

* a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR-
New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in
recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's
favorable settlement;

* the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

* the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been
the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it
has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and
residential security businesses named Allegion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a
substantial number of lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote. Additionally, we have
claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more
favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result
in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently
unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-
related claims, although future claims would also be subject to
then existing indemnities and insurance coverage."

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of flow control systems. The Company develops and
manufacture precision-engineered flows control equipment integral
to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials
in its customers' critical processes. The Company operates in
three segments: Engineered Product Division (EPD), which includes
long leads time, custom and other engineered pumps and pump
systems, mechanical seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts
and related services, Industrial Product Division (IPD), which
includes pre-configured engineered pumps and pump systems and
related products and services, and Flow Control Division (FCD),
which includes engineered and industrial valves, control valves,
actuators and controls and related services. Effective December
10, 2013, Flowserve Corp acquired Innovative Mag-Drive LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
the aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was
$46.1 and $46.9, respectively, and the related insurance recovery
receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments
was $20.0 million at both March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013.
The asbestos liability at March 31, 2014, and December 31, 2013,
was $37.8 million and $37.9 million, respectively, and the
insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims
for past payments was $19.6 million for both periods. We
anticipate receiving a net tax benefit for payment of those claims
for which full insurance recovery is not realized.

We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one
of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the
U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or
formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for
specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous
defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically,
most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed
without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no
assurances that this pattern will continue.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, there were 8,100
asbestos claimants.

The number is rounded to the nearest hundred and is based on
information as received by us which may lag actual court filing
dates by several months or more. Claims are recorded as closed
when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are
opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant
previously dismissed or severed from another case.

Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049.

In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of
$2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for
indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims
and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for
probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims.
The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim
filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement
value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of
the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future
claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48%
of our future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage-In-
Place-Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers.

The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Had 1,500 Fibro Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 1,500 asbestos-related claims pending against Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through March 31, 2014, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,400 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,500 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through March 31, 2014, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that
any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect
on our future results of operations, financial position or cash
flow, and at March 31, 2014, we had approximately $4,200,000
accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to
unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of
potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the
probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of
liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for
recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance,
indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to
quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because
of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and
deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our
insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an energy infrastructure
focused company and provider of government services. The Company
operates in four segments: Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance, which offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities; Fabrication
Services, which provides fabrication of piping systems, process
and nuclear modules, fabrication and erection of steel plate
storage tanks and pressure vessels for oil and gas and power
generation industries; Technology, which offers licensed process
technologies, specialized equipment, and engineered products for
use in petrochemical facilities, oil refineries, and gas
processing plants and provides process planning and project
development services, and Government Solutions, which undertakes
programs and projects, including design-build infrastructure
projects for federal, state and local governments, as well as
offers environmental services for government and private sector
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 22,548 Unresolved Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 22,548 unresolved asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 28, 2014.

The Company recorded $51,374,000 accrued asbestos liability as of
March 28, 2014.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-
handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden
and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's
products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler,
Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech,
Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has
production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers
customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer
needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V.
In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012,
Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the
Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. In April 2014, Colfax
Corporation completed the acquisition of Victor Technologies
Holdings Inc from Irving Place Capital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 24 Filter Cases v. Lorillard Scheduled for Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are 24 filter cases against Lorillard Inc. that are
scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars
as of April 24, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of April 21, 2014, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 63 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in two Filter Cases, including one that also names
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2011, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$36.6 million in settlements to finally resolve 147 claims,
including the Lenney case. The related expense was recorded in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income. Since January 1, 2011, verdicts have been
returned in the following four Filter Cases: Lenney v. Armstrong
International, Inc., et al. trial, tried in the Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County; McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco
Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit
Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v.
Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton
Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms
of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V
Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material),
Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose
for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and
claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard
Company that contained the filter material. In the Lenney trial,
the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims, and
the final judgment entered by the trial court in 2011 awarded
plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory
damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose noticed an appeal to the California Court of
Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims
they might assert in the future, for an amount that is included in
the total for settlements reached since January 1, 2011. The jury
in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May
2012. On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed
the final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth
& Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied
plaintiff's petition for rehearing. On October 4, 2012, the jury
in the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco
and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final judgment on
November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal
for the Second Appellate District entered an order dismissing the
appeal of the final judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but
plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment remains pending. On
September 13, 2013, the jury in the DeLisle case found in favor of
the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence and strict
liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco Company is
responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on
November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco Company filed its notice of
appeal on November 18, 2013. As of April 21, 2014, 24 Filter Cases
were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial
calendars. Trial dates are subject to change.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Awaits Ruling in Insurance Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company is awaiting a ruling in an appeal filed in
its insurance coverage lawsuit, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, our Company owned Aqua-Chem,
Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"). During that
time, the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance
coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and
future costs for certain product liability and other claims. A
division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that contained
gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers. Several
years after our Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its
first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the
gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos
lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000
active claims pending against it. In September 2002, Aqua-Chem
notified our Company that it believed we were obligated for
certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos
litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that our Company reimburse it for
approximately $10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-related
expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a
continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and
expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable
insurance or for which there is no insurance. Our Company disputes
Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe we have no obligation to Aqua-
Chem for any of its past, present or future liabilities, costs or
expenses. Furthermore, we believe we have substantial legal and
factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into
litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed
in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action
against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance
companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and
liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and
reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their
obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with
several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will
pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from
the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the
Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment
regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the
insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers,
which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other
things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to
policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued
to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over those insurers'
obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-
related claims. The Company anticipated that a final settlement
with three of those insurers (the "Chartis insurers") would be
finalized in May 2011, but such insurers repudiated their
settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company
filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the
coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a
declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's
interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation. In February 2012, the parties filed and
argued a number of cross-motions for summary judgment related to
the issues of the enforceability of the settlement agreement and
the exhaustion of policies underlying those of the Chartis
insurers. The court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment that the 2011 Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet
were not binding contracts, but denied their similar motions
related to the plaintiffs' claims for promissory and/or equitable
estoppel. On or about May 15, 2012, the parties entered into a
mutually agreeable settlement/stipulation resolving two major
issues: exhaustion of underlying coverage and control of defense.
On or about January 10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of
the estoppel claims and all of the remaining coverage issues, with
the exception of one disputed issue relating to the scope of the
Chartis insurers' defense obligations in two policy years. The
trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and
Aqua-Chem on that one open issue and entered a final appealable
judgment to that effect following the parties' settlement. On
January 23, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of
the trial court's summary judgment ruling. On October 29, 2013,
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem. On November 27,
2013, the Chartis insurers filed a petition for review in the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and on December 11, 2013, the Company
filed its opposition to that petition. Whatever the outcome of the
Chartis insurers' appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the
Chartis insurers will remain subject to the court's judgment in
the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or range
of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a result of
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company believes
that assuming (1) the defense and indemnity costs for the
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the
same range as during the past five years, and (2) the various
insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem
remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place
settlement litigation but taking into account the issues resolved
to date, insurance coverage for substantially all defense and
indemnity costs would be available for the next 10 to 15 years.

The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company. The Company owns or
licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands,
primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still
beverages, such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice
drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports
drinks. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling
beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and
Sprite. The Company's segments include Eurasia and Africa, Europe,
Latin America, North America, Pacific, Bottling Investments and
Corporate. In January 2013, Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Company
announced that it had been acquired by the Company. Effective
February 22, 2013, Coca-Cola Co acquired interest in Fresh Trading
Ltd. In November 2013, Coca-Cola Company and ZICO Beverages LLC
announced that Coca-Cola has acquired the ownership interest in
ZICO.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Plan Confirmation Appeals Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the memorandum opinion and final order confirming the
modified third amended plan of reorganization filed by PPG
Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary remain pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

To address the issues raised by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania in its December 2006 ruling in
the Chapter 11 case of Pittsburg Corning Corporation, interested
parties engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the terms of a
third amended plan of reorganization, including modifications to
the settlement arrangement dated May 14, 2002, between PPG and
several other parties relating to certain asbestos claims.  A
modified third amended PC plan of reorganization, including a
modified PPG settlement arrangement, was filed with the Bankruptcy
Court on January 29, 2009. The parties also filed a disclosure
statement describing the third amended PC plan of reorganization
with the court. The third amended PC plan of reorganization also
includes a modified settlement arrangement of Corning
Incorporated.

Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to
the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the
Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the
disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization
and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including
asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent,
filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes,
including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009
PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court
conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan,
including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to
present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated
in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection
provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in
view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be
established as part of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The
remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved
through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing)
appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a
briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the
plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was
completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June
16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying
confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization.

Following the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended PC plan of
reorganization was the subject of negotiations among the parties
in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings. PC then
filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on August 17, 2012.
Objections to the plan, as amended, were filed by three entities.
One set of objections was resolved by PC, and another set merely
restated for appellate purposes objections filed by a party that
the Bankruptcy Court previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court
heard oral argument on the one remaining set of objections filed
by the remaining affiliated insurer objectors on October 10, 2012.
At the conclusion of that argument, the Bankruptcy Court set forth
a schedule for negotiating and filing language that would resolve
some, but not all, of the objections to confirmation advanced by
the insurer objectors. On October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice
regarding proposed confirmation order language that resolved those
specific objections. Following additional hearings and status
conferences, technical amendments to the PC plan of reorganization
were filed on May 15, 2013. On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
issued a memorandum opinion and interim order confirming the PC
plan of reorganization, as amended, and setting forth a schedule
for motions for reconsideration. Following the filing of motions
for reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court, on May 24, 2013, issued
a revised memorandum opinion and final order confirming the
modified third amended plan of reorganization and issuing the
asbestos permanent channeling injunction. The remaining insurer
objectors filed a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2013. On
November 12, 2013 the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting in
part (by clarifying the scope of the channeling injunction in
accordance with the agreement of the parties as expressed at the
time of final argument on the motion for reconsideration) and
otherwise denying the motion for reconsideration. Notices of
appeal to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania were filed by the remaining objecting parties. On
March 17, 2014, the appeal of the remaining non-insurer objecting
party was dismissed voluntarily, leaving only two affiliated
insurance companies as appellants.

Assuming that the District Court ultimately affirms the
confirmation order, the remaining objectors could appeal the order
to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently could
seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective
until certain conditions precedent are satisfied or waived and the
amended PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by an
appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate
review, and PPG's initial contributions will not be due until 30
business days thereafter (the "Funding Effective Date").

Of the total obligation of $1,018 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2014, $769 million is reported
as a current liability and $249 million is reported as a non-
current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion of
the liability will total $91 million and be reported as expense in
the condensed consolidated statement of income over the period
through 2023.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, resulting from the 2009
PPG Settlement Arrangement including the change in fair value of
the stock to be transferred to the Trust and the equity forward
instrument and the increase in the net present value of the future
payments to be made to the Trust, the Company disclosed a $3
million net expense for asbestos settlement.

The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an
"Other" current asset as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013
in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Payments
under the fixed payment schedule require annual payments that are
due each June. The current portion of the asbestos settlement
liability included in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2014 consists of all such payments
required through June 2014, the fair value of PPG's common stock
and the value of PPG's investment in Pittsburgh Corning Europe.
The net present value of the remaining payments is included in the
long-term asbestos settlement liability in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014.

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and
decorative coatings. PPG operates in six business segments:
Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural
Coatings- EMEA segments supply protective and decorative finishes
for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial
equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum
extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft
equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and
consumer products. The Optical and Specialty Materials segment
consist of the optical products and silicas businesses. The Glass
business segment consists of the flat glass and fiber glass
businesses. In March 2014, the Company acquired all the assets of
Hi-Temp Coatings Technology Co., Inc. In April 2014, the Company
announced the completion of its 51% ownership interest in its
Transitions Optical joint venture and PPG's wholly-owned sunlens
business to Essilor International.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMI OK'd to Amend Indemnification Suit v. FFIC
----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2003, Barnard and Burk, Inc., and Amec Construction
Management, Inc., as successor-in-interest to B&B, along with
others, were named as defendants in almost 50 asbestos-exposure
lawsuits in Louisiana consisting of over 300 plaintiffs.
Thereafter, between 2003 and 2007, additional lawsuits were filed
against B&B and ACMI as successor-in-interest to B&B.  All the
lawsuits allege liability on the part of B&B and ACMI as
successor-in-interest to B&B.  ACMI has paid for all of the
litigation costs associated with the Original and Additional
Lawsuits out of its own funds.  ACMI sought reimbursement of its
expenses from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company.

Because of FFIC's failure to reimburse the litigation costs, ACMI
filed a lawsuit seeking: (1) a declaration that Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company has a duty to defend and duty to indemnify; (2)
damages for breach of an insurance contract; (3) damages for a
breach of the duty of good faith; and (4) damages for unjust
enrichment.  FFIC filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the
complaint is insufficiently pled because it fails to identify
specific policy provisions that have been breached.

While Judge James Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana acknowledged that the failure to point to
specific contracts or contractual provisions is fatal to ACMI's
claims, he denied FFIC's motion to dismiss and granted ACMI leave
to amend its complaint as ACI has identified at least one specific
policy and policy provions that FFIC has allegedly breached.

The case is AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. v. FIREMAN'S FUND
INSURANCE COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-718-JJB-SCR (M.D. La.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Brady's ruling dated May 9, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Rd625efrom Leagle.com.

AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Dominic J. Ovella, Esq. -- novella@hmhlp.com -- Anne Elizabeth
Medo, Esq., and Sean Patrick Mount, Esq. -- smount@hmhlp.com -- at
Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Julia
Ann Dietz, Esq. -- jdietz@degan.com -- Keith Alex Kornman, Esq. --
kkornman@degan.com -- Mary K. Cryar, Esq. -- mcryar@degan.com --
and Sidney W. Degan, III, Esq. -- sdegan@degan.com -- at Degan,
Blanchard & Nash.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Ex-Stimson Worker Has Fibro Illness
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Jeremiah Shea of the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana, in a finding of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment
dated May 5, 2014, ruled that petitioner Judy Baeth suffered an
occupational disease, asbestos-related lung disease, as a result
of her employment with Stimson Lumber Company and she is not
barred from maintaining a claim for OD benefits.  The Petitioner,
the judge said, has a 45% impairment rating.  Since the Petitioner
voluntarily retired, she is presently only entitled to her
impairment award and to medical benefits as a result of her OD,
the judge further ruled.

The case is JUDY BAETH, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY NW INS. CORP.
Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2013-3183 (MTWCC).  A full-text copy
of Judge Shea's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Yzjapgfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Ex-Workers' Award Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner William L. Boyce appeals the decision of the West
Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review.  The appeal arises
from the Board of Review's Final Order dated July 13, 2012, in
which the Board affirmed a February 21, 2012, Order of the
Workers' Compensation Office of Judges.  In its Order, the Office
of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's February 22, 2008,
decision which denied a permanent partial disability award.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in a May 7, 2014,
memorandum decision affirmed the Board of Review's decision,
holding that the medical reports indicate that Mr. Boyce suffered
from asbestos-related pleural disease but that he did not contract
asbestosis in the course of his employment.  The Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board determined that his lung cancer developed as
the result of his 36-year history of smoking two packs of
cigarettes a day and Board's opinion is reinforced by Dr. Crouch's
pathology findings, the Supreme Court said.

The case is WILLIAM L. BOYCE, Claimant Below, Petitioner, v. WEST
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, Commissioner Below,
Respondent, and WOOD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Employer Below,
Respondent, No. 12-0904 (W. Va.).  A full-text copy of the Supreme
Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/a32FcDfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Denied for Failure to State Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona dismissed a pro se civil rights complaint
filed by Kenneth Harvey Braatz, who is confined in the Maricopa
County Durango Jail, for failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that there is asbestos in the ceiling
and, as a result, he has become sick.  The case is Kenneth Harvey
Braatz, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, No. CV
14-0689-PHX-DGC (JFM)(D. Ariz.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Campbell's Decision is available at http://is.gd/dHHHIIfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Admission Bids OK'd in Ford v. Garlock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 3:14-cv-
00171-MOC (W.D.N.C.)., Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, issued orders allowing granting the motion for
special admission filed by Alice S. Johnston and the motion for
admission pro hac vice filed by Nava Hazan.  Full-text copies of
the Orders dated May 9, 2014, are available at http://is.gd/gk56wg
and http://is.gd/T0A39gfrom Leagle.com.

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

Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff, represented by E. Duncan Getchell,
Jr., Esq., Karen Elizabeth Sieg, Esq., Kirk Gibson Warner, Esq.,
and Michael H. Brady, Esq., at McGuireWoods, LLP.

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

Resolute Management, Inc., Movant, represented by Henry T. M.
LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto, P.A., and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

AIU Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-
Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle
Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S.
Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George
Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

American Home Assurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T.
M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A.,
Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler,
PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.,
and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis
Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Movant,
represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman
Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin
Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III,
Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

Granite State Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T.
M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A.,
Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler,
PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.,
and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis
Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

Lexington Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M.
LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi
Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA,
John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Movant,
represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., at Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., at Allman
Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin
Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., and George Dudley Humphrey, III,
Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Movant,
represented by Travis Waterbury Moon, Esq., at Moon Wright &
Houston, PLLC, and Trevor W. Swett, III, Esq., at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered.

Honeywell International, Inc., Movant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq., at Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P., and Nava Hazan,
Esq., at Squire & Sanders LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R&Q May File More Docs in Reinsurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
At an unspecified time, plaintiff Employers Insurance Company of
Wausau issued two umbrella liability insurance policies to the
Marley Company under the numbers 0722-50-024941 and 0724-50-
024941.  After Marley was sued by individuals for injuries covered
by the policies related to asbestos exposure, Marley sued the
plaintiff for a determination of its rights under those policies.
In July 2010, the plaintiff began billing defendant R&Q
Reinsurance Company for the defendant's share of payments the
plaintiff has made under the settlement agreement with Marley.
The plaintiff sued the defendant and filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that the defendant owes it approximately $694,000
under the reinsurance agreements and approximately $37,000 in
prejudgment interest.

Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, in an opinion and order dated
May 16, 2014, conditionally granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment with respect to certain issues, but allowed the
defendant to submit supplemental materials on the questions
whether the plaintiff has proven the extent to which it has
exceeded the retention amounts and whether the plaintiff has
calculated prejudgment interest correctly.

The case is EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, Plaintiff, v.
R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 13-cv-709-bbc (W.D. Wis.).
A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/wgj3Jwfrom Leagle.com.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Plaintiff, represented by
Mark Charles Kareken, Esq.  R&Q Reinsurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Brian Michael Reid, Esq. -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com
-- and Joseph B. Royster, Esq. -- royster@litchfieldcavo.com -- at
Litchfield Cavo LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Insurance Suit Headed for Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States Fire Insurance Company moved to compel
arbitration and dismiss the complaint filed by The Flowserve
Corporation, which complaint sought defense and indemnification
under insurance policies for thousands of asbestos claims filed
against Flowserve.

Judge William H. Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, in an opinion dated May 7, 2014, granted US Fire's
motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint, holding
that the current dispute between Flowserve and US Fire falls
within the scope of the arbitration clause found in a Settlement
and Cost Sharing Agreement entered into in November 2000 between
Flowserve and US Fire, as well as all of the other insurers in the
lawsuit.

The case is THE FLOWSERVE CORPORATION f/k/a THE DURAMETALLIC
CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, No. 2:14-cv-00676 (WHW)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Halls' Decision is available at http://is.gd/ias2Wqfrom
Leagle.com.

THE FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, represented by REBECCA
BRAZZANO, Esq. -- Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- at THOMPSON
HINE LLP.  U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation,
Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER R. CARROLL, Esq. --
ccarroll@cmk.com -- at CARROLL, MCNULTY & KULL, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Insurers' Bid for Reargument Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendants The Continental Insurance Company and Centre Insurance
Company, as successors-in-interest to some or all of the relevant
insurance obligations of London Guarantee and Accident Company,
Ltd., and American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, (the
"CNA Defendants"), have moved for reargument of a January 6, 2014
opinion issued by the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
County, which granted the plaintiff's, CNH America, LLC, Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Duty to Defend.

The CNA Defendants move for reargument on the question of whether
a "loss" occurred prior to 1994 for purposes of determining
whether the anti-assignment clause precluded transfer of rights
under CNA Defendants' policies to Plaintiff.  The Superior Court,
in an order dated April 29, 2014, held that the word "losses" in
the finding refers to occurrences of alleged exposure to asbestos
during the policy years.  The assignment of the policies in the
1994 reorganization assigned the right to a defense against claims
arising from such occurrences, even though the claims were not
asserted until the three year period preceding the filing of the
action, the Superior Court said.  The Superior Court added that is
former decision was not based on the analysis described by the CNA
Defendants.

Since the standard for granting a motion for reargument has not
been satisfied, the Superior Court denied the motion.

The cases are CNH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited liability
company f/k/a Case Corporation Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CASUALTY
COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, et
al Defendants; and AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING,
PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation; and The CONTINENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. EPEC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Third-Party Defendant, C.A. No. N12C-07-108 JTV (Superior Court of
Delaware, New Castle County).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Na49eGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Dropped as Defendant in "Ricco" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jufgr Charles R. Bryer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, in an order dated April 24, 2014,
dismissed with prejudice all allegations, if any, related to
exposure to asbestos on or after December 5, 1980, as to Fluor
Corporation in the case captioned FRANK RICCO, Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:10-cv-04713-CRB (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Bryer's Decision is available at http://is.gd/iALohbfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Vedros" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion to remand filed in
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned VEDROS, ET
AL v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL., Section: J,
Civil Action No. 11-1198 (E.D. La.)., holding that the case is
similar to other cases where district courts in the 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.  A full-text copy of Judge
Barbier's April 24, 2014, order and reasons is available at
http://is.gd/6gio8Ufrom Leagle.com.

Sally Gros Vedros, Lori Vedros Kravet, Valerie Vedros White, and
Gerald Vedros, Plaintiffs, are represented by:

         Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Esq.
         Jonathan Brett Clement, Esq.
         Lauren Roussel Clement, Esq.
         Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Esq.
         ROUSSEL & CLEMENT
         Attorneys at Law
         1714 Cannes Drive
         La Place, LA 70068-2407
         Tel: (985) 651-6591
         Fax: (985) 651-6592

Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third Party
Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates,
Esq., Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles,
Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, and Cross
Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., and
Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Esq., at Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Esq., at
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq.,
at Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq., at Blue
Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP, and
Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq., Alexandra
Lamothe, Esq., Ernest G. Foundas, Esq., Francis Xavier deBlanc,
III, Esq., Lee Blanton Ziffer, Esq., McGready Lewis Richeson,
Esq., Michael H. Abraham, Esq., Robert Edward Guidry, Esq., and
Sophia L. Lauricella, Esq., at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC.

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

Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill
Goodier, Esq., and William P. Wynne, Esq., Jones Walker.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan
Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry, Esq., and
Michael David Harold, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP.

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

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

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Esq., Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq., Jennifer H.
McLaughlin, Esq., and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross
Claimant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq., Gary Allen Lee,
Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Esq., at
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq.,
at Blue Williams, LLP, and David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., at Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., David
Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Blaine Augusta Moore,
Esq., Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq., Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Esq.,
and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward T. Hayes, Esq. -- ehayes@leakeandersson.com
-- and Marc E. Devenport, Esq. -- mdevenport@leakeandersson.com --
Leake & Andersson, LLP, and Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Esq., at
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by
Susan Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry,
Esq., and Michael David Harold, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., and
Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Esq., Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Esq., Jennifer D. Zajac,
Esq., and Kenneth R. Royer, Esq., at Willingham, Fultz & Cougill,
LLP; and Diane Sweezer Davis, Esq. -- DDavis@ffllp.com -- at
Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Esq., and Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Esq., at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Freeman" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana issued and order and reasons dated
April 4, 2014, granting a motion to remand to the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit captioned DAN FREEMAN, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET
AL., SECTION "N" (4)(E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Engelhardt's Decision is available at http://is.gd/m0WvuJfrom
Leagle.com.

Dan Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy J. Young, Esq.,
Tammy D. Harris, Esq., Vallie Schwartz Dugas, Esq., at Young Firm;
Jason C. MacFetters, Esq., at Law Office of Maria B. de Gracia;
and Rebecca Ann Rena Coman, Esq., at Rebecca A. Coman, Attorney at
Law.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ernest G.
Foundas, Esq., at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by David C. L. Gibbons,
Jr., Esq., at Al M. Thompson, Jr., LLC.

Coastal Chemical Co., LLC, Defendant, represented by Campbell
Edington Wallace, Esq., Allen Joseph Krouse, III, Esq., Caroline
C. Boling, Esq., and Krystle Ferbos, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C..

J.J.R. Land, LLC, Defendant, represented by Norman Charles
Sullivan, Jr., Esq. -- nsullivan@frfirm.com -- and George J.
Fowler, III, Esq. -- nsullivan@frfirm.com -- at Fowler Rodriguez.

Murphy Exploration & Production Co., USA, Defendant, represented
by Robert S. Emmett, Esq. -- remmett@bakerdonelson.com --
Christopher Matthew Hannan, Esq. -- channan@bakerdonelson.com --
and James Harold Daigle, Esq. -- jdaigle@bakerdonelson.com -- at
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Murphy Exploration & Production Company, Defendant, represented by
Robert S. Emmett, Esq., Christopher Matthew Hannan, Esq., and
James Harold Daigle, Esq., at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant, represented by
Charles A. Cerise, Jr., Esq. -- charles.cerise@arlaw.com -- Alex
E. Cosculluela, Esq. -- aec@arlaw.com -- Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq. --
gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com -- and Kathleen F. Drew, Esq. --
kathleen.drew@arlaw.com -- at Adams & Reese, LLP.

Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Randall C.
Mulcahy, Esq. -- rmulcahy@garrisonyount.com -- and Robert T.
Vorhoff, Esq. -- rvorhoff@garrisonyount.com -- at Garrison, Yount,
Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC.

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq., and and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq., at
Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC.

North River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jay M.
Lonero, Esq. -- jlonero@lpwsl.com -- Christopher Raymond Pennison,
Esq. -- cpennison@lpwsl.com -- and Jennifer R. Kretschmann, Esq.
-- jkretschmann@lpwsl.com -- at Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson,
Lonero, LLC.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by
Randall C. Mulcahy, Esq., and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq., at
Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC.

Gray Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Edward Joseph
Koehl, Jr., Esq., at Jones Walker.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Defendant, represented by
Michelle L. Maraist, Esq., and Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq., at
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Charles A. Cerise,
Jr., Esq., Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq., and Kathleen F. Drew, Esq., at
Adams & Reese, LLP.

Coastal of Abbeville, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Jay M.
Lonero, Esq., and Christopher Raymond Pennison, Esq., at
Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC.

Charter Oaks Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Randall
C. Mulcahy, Esq., and Robert T. Vorhoff, Esq., at Garrison, Yount,
Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Fulwider" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois denied a motion to remand
the personal injury lawsuit styled RALPH LEWIS FULWIDER,
Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:13-cv-01220-SCW (S.D. Ill.), after determining that
defendant Crane Co. has presented a "colorable federal defense."
A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's April 11, 2014, order
is available at http://is.gd/cUtrjOfrom Leagle.com.

Ralph Lewis Fulwider, Plaintiff, represented by:

         Allyson Michelle Romani, Esq.
         SHRADER & ASSOCIATES LLP
         3900 Essex Lane, Suite 390
         Houston, Texas 77027
         Tel: 713-782-0000
         Fax: 713-571-9605
         E-mail: info@shraderlaw.com

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor-by-merger to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- at Heyl, Royster
et al..

Ajax Magnethermic Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq. --
rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- and Anita M. Kidd, Esq. --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and
Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al..

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

Ameron International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq. -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com
-- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

AO Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

         CRIVELLO CARLSON LLC
         710 N. Plankinton Ave.
         Suite 500
         Milwaukee, WI 53203
         Phone: (414) 271-7722
         Fax: (414) 271-4438

API Heat Transfer, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq. -- sfjones@gordonrees.com
-- at Gordon & Rees LLP.

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

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Dayna L. Johnson, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Baltimore Aircoil Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq. --
mchessler@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom LLC.

Beazer East Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al.

Bird Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong
Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al.

Bonney Forge Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. -- khardee@polsinelli.com
-- and Kirra N. Jones, Esq. -- knjones@polsinelli.com -- at
Polsinelli PC.

Borgwarner Morse Tec., Inc., successor-by-merger Borg Warner
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com --
Herzog Crebs LLP.

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Esq. --
knussbaumer@wvslaw.com -- and Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq. --
mrychnovsky@wvslaw.com -- at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Carboline Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

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

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita
M. Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King,
Esq., at Gallop, Johnson et al.

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Donald J. Dahlmann, Esq., and Leslie G.
Offergeld, Esq., at Walker & Williams.

Clark Equipment Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C..

Clow Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Compudyne Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr., Esq. -- nsmith@heplerbroom.com
-- at HeplerBroom LLC.

Cummins, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

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

Dewitt Products Co., Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport,
Esq. -- mnewport@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Dezurik, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth Kamp
Veath, Esq., at Brown & James.

Dravo Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al..

Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher J. Lang, Esq. -- lang@pspclaw.com -- at Pitzer,
Snodgrass, P.C.

Flowserve Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Durametallic
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Flowserve U.S., Inc, as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Co,.
and Edward Valve Co., and Nordstrom Valve, Defendant, Cross
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by David W. Ybarra,
Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al.

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

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M.
Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq.,
at Gallop, Johnson et al.

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

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Matthew J. Morris, Esq. --
Matthew.Morris@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Greene Tweed & Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP.

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

Homasote Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew J. Morris, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones,
Esq., at Polsinelli PC.

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq.
-- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Hyster Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Esq., and Derek Ruzicka, Esq.
-- ruzicka@pspclaw.com -- at Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., individually and as Successor-in-
Interest to Devcon Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

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

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at
HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Invensys Systems, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at
McGuire Woods LLP.

J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq.,
Justin Andrew Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog,
Crebs et al.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler
H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq.,
at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Johnson Controls, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Gary L. Smith, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs
et al.

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Michael W.
Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Kvaerner U.S., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli
PC.

Lattner Boiler Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Defendant, represented by
Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Lindberg, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Melanie E. Riley, Esq., at Sandberg, Phoenix et al.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com
-- at Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.

Milwaukee Valve Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

MW Custom Papers, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

Navistar International, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com -- and Kirra
N. Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC.

Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Ross S. Titzer, Esq. -- rtitzer@wvslaw.com -- at Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC.

RIC-WIL, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

Rockwell Automations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

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

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq.,
at Polsinelli PC.

Seco Warwick Corporation, as succesor-In-interest to Sunbeam
Furnaces, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.

Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Marley
Cooling Tower, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael D. Hultquist, Esq. --
michael.hultquist@dentons.com -- and Roger K. Heidenreich, Esq. --
roger.heidenreich@dentons.com -- at Dentons US LLP.

Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Nicholas B Bunnell, Esq. --
nbunnell@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

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

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch,
Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Universal Refractories, Inc., Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

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

Weil McLain, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog Crebs LLP.

Whiting Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

XEF, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael
W. Newport, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., at Herzog
Crebs LLP.

Young Group, Ltd., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, Cross
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lise A. Newton, Esq. -- anewton@foleymansfield.com
-- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Upholds Disability Benefits Suit Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, in an order and judgment dated April 24, 2014, affirmed a
district court's order affirming the decision of the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration to deny David Garrison's
applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income.  The Tenth Circuit also refused to consider the
evidence pertaining to Mr. Garrison's asbestos-related disease
that was submitted for the first time on appeal.

The case is DAVID GARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAROLYN W.
COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 13-8057 (10th Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/O46ojrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Late Filing Leads to "Gensler" Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey dismissed the action styled ROSILYND HILLARY
GENSLER, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 13-5244 (MAS) (DEA)(D.N.J.), after finding that the
suit, which asserts that Joel I. Gensler perished as a result of
the defendant's negligent manufacturing and distribution of floor
tiles containing asbestos, was filed out of time.  A full-text
copy of Judge Shipp's memorandum order dated April 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Qnxvf7from Leagle.com.

ROSILYND HILLARY GENSLER, Plaintiff, represented by:

         Robert Michael Silverman, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG
         200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
         Telephone: (856) 755-1115
         Fax: (856) 755-1995

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, Esq. -- rpicini@carusosmith.com -- at CARUSO
SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Judge Recommends Remand of "Genusa" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana recommended that the motion
to remand the action styled LOUIS GENUSA v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, ET AL., Civil Action No. 13-794-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.), to th
18th Judicial District Court, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff Louis
Genusa's claims against the defendants, and Baton Rouge Marine
Contractors, Inc.'s third-party claims against McKoin Trucking,
should be severed from BRMC's third-party claims against the
International Longshoreman's Association, AFL-CIO, South Atlantic
& Gulf Coast District, ILA, AFL-CIO, and Local 3033, ILA, AFL-CIO.

The complaint relates that Genusa worked as a longshoreman, truck
loader, warehouse worker, and in other positions from 1963 to 1998
for various transportation companies at the Port of Baton Rogue in
Port Allen, Louisiana.  He allegedly contracted malignant
mesothelioma from asbestos exposure while conducting such work.

A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation dated April 22, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/jDS6vnfrom Leagle.com.

Louis Genusa, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Frank J. Swarr, Esq.
-- fswarr@landryswarr.com -- Mickey P. Landry, Esq. --
mlandry@landryswarr.com -- and Philip Charles Hoffman, Esq. --
phoffman@landryswarr.com -- at Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC; and
John F. Dillon, Esq. -- jdillon1@johndillon.com -- at John F.
Dillon, PLC.

Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes
Baxter, Esq. -- kbaxter@sbm-legal.com -- at Swetman Baxter
Massenburg.

Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Defendant, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Patrick E. Costello, Esq. -- pcostello@mblb.com --
Mark E. Hanna, mhanna@mblb.com -- Trevor M. Cutaiar,
tcutaiar@mblb.com -- and Wilton Ellwood Bland, III, Esq. --
wblandiv@mblb.com -- at Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett.

SSA Gulf, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

         Richard P. Sulzer, Esq.
         Christina Leigh Falco, Esq.
         Robert E. Williams, IV, Esq.
         Sulzer & Williams, L.L.C.
         201 Holiday Blvd., Ste. 335
         Covington, LA 70433

Ramsay Scarlett & Company, Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Esq., Jeffrey M. Burg, Esq., and William J. Sommers,
Jr., Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC.

Ernest Levering, III, Executive Officer of Ramsay Scarlett,
Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Jeffrey M.
Burg, Esq., and William J. Sommers, Jr., Esq., at Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers LLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by H.
Minor Pipes, III, Esq., and Susan M. Rogge, Esq., at Barrasso
Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC.

Port of Greater Baton Rouge, Defendant, represented by Stephen W.
Glusman, Esq., at Glusman, Broyles & Glusman; and Andrew L.
Plauche, Jr., Esq., Kenan S. Rand, Jr, Esq., and Lacey Elizabeth
Sarver, Esq., at Plauche Maselli Parkerson LLP.

Louisiana Insurance Guarantee Association, Defendant, represented
by:

         E. Scott Hackenberg, Esq.
         Brenda H. Verbois, Esq.
         HENCHY, VERBOIS & HACKENBERG, LLC
         7904 Wrenwood Boulevard Suite C
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809
         Phone: 225-928-4444
         Fax: 225-923-1234

International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented by Christina L. Carroll, Esq. -- Robein,
Urann & Lurye; and John P. Sheridan, Esq. -- jsheridan@mmmpc.com -
- and Kevin Marrinan, Esq. -- kmarrinan@mmmpc.com -- at Marrinan &
Mazzola Mardon, PC.

South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, ILA, AFL-CIO, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented by Christina L. Carroll, Esq., at Robein,
Urann & Lurye; and John P. Sheridan, Esq., and Kevin Marrinan,
Esq., at Marrinan & Mazzola Mardon, PC.

Local 3033, ILA, AFL-CIO, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Christina L. Carroll, Esq., at Robein, Urann & Lurye.

McKoin Trucking Company, LLC, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Amy Collier Lambert, Esq. -- amy.lambert@taylorporter.com -- and
Kathryn Colvin Goodson, Esq. -- katie.goodson@taylorporter.com --
at Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Groover" Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum dated
April 24, 2014, affirming a lower court's decision granting the
motions for summary judgment filed by defendants CBS Corporation
and Spirax Sarco, Inc., in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit captioned ALLEN GROOVER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
CHERYL GROOVER AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT, Appellant, v. CBS
CORPORATION, WEIL-McCLAIN, SPIRAX SARCO, INC., RILEY STOKER
CORPORATION, JOHN ZINK COMPANY, JOHN CRANE HOUDAILLE, INC.,
INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, GOULD PUMPS, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER, CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY, CLEAVER-BROOKS,
INC., BP AMERICA, INC., ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, AMERICAN
STANDARD, INC., ARCO CHEMICAL, No. 680 EDA 2013 (Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/RNwfjrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dropped as Defendant in "Gurnett" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen C. Williams of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order
dated April 2, 2014, granting a motion to dismiss an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit with respect to Crane Co. and
remand the motion to the Third Judicial Circuit state court,
Madison County Illinois, Case No. 13-L-1740.

The case is JAMES A. GURNETT and MARY ANN KRUGER, Plaintiffs, v.
AO SMITH CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-1206-SCW (S.D.
Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Williams' Decision is available
at http://is.gd/gKwCYefrom Leagle.com.

James A. Gurnett, Plaintiff, Mary Ann Kruger, his wife, Plaintiff,
represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq. -- randy@gorijulianlaw.com --
and Gail G. Renshaw, Esq. -- grenshaw@gorijulianlaw.com -- at Gori
Julian and Associates P.C.

AO Smith Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic LLC.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Esq., at Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

CBS Corporation, on f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue,
Esq. -- ddonahue@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Champlain Cable Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M.
Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq.,
at Gallop, Johnson et al.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Meredith S Hudgens, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C..

Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., and Anita M.
Kidd, Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; and Melanie R. King, Esq.,
at Gallop, Johnson et al.

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

Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., Successor
in Interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N.
Jones, Esq., at Polsinelli PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to
DELAVAL TURBINE INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

ITT Corporation, Inc, f/k/a ITT INDUSTRIES INC., Individually and
as Successor in Interest to BELL & GOSSETT, Defendant, Cross
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers,
Esq., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at McGuire Woods LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns L.L.C..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest
to ABEX CORPORATION and AMERICAN BRAKE-BLOCK, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker
& Sanders LLC.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Riley Power, Inc., f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWERS, INC., RILEY STOKER
CORPORATION F/K/A DB RILEY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

Trane US, Inc., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Individually and as
Successor in Interest to KEWANEE BOILER CORPORATION, Defendant,
Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Wilsonart International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by HeplerBroom et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hasenberg" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order
dated April 9, 2014, denying a motion to remand the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit styled WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR., and
LINDA HASENBERG, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-1325-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.), after
concluding that the federal officer removal of the lawsuit was
proper.  A full-text copy of Judge Reagan's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/CcuXOtfrom Leagle.com.

William Hasenberg, Jr., and Linda Hasenberg, Plaintiff,
represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Esq., Steven M. Aroesty, Esq.,
and Stephanie L. Gold, Esq., at Napoli Bern, et al..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl,
Royster et al..

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq. --
torris@wvslaw.com -- Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Esq., and Mary D.
Rychnovsky, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al..

Continental Teves, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al..

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr., Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Cummins Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by David W. Ybarra, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et
al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq.,  at Segal, McCambridge et
al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

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

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Todd Nelson, Esq. -- tnelson@gordonrees.com -- at
Gordon & Rees LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., at Polsinelli PC.

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

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns L.L.C.

Linda Hasenberg, Cross Defendant, represented by Eric D.
Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al., Steven M. Aroesty, Napoli Bern, et
al. & Stephanie L. Gold, Napoli Bern, et al..

Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Maureen A. McGlynn, Esq. -- mo@kmblaw1.com --
Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., at Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders
LLC.

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

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

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

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

William Hasenberg, Jr., Cross Defendant, represented by Eric D.
Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al., Steven M. Aroesty, Napoli Bern, et
al. & Stephanie L. Gold, Napoli Bern, et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Hellam" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Hellam developed mesothelioma decades after he was
exposed to products of Crane Co. that contained asbestos.  A jury
found Crane strictly liable for Hellam's injury.  In consolidated
appeals, Crane contends: (1) insufficient evidence was presented
that its products had a design defect; (2) insufficient evidence
was presented that its products were a "substantial factor" in
causing Hellam's mesothelioma; (3) the judgment improperly failed
to apply settlement credits and was not final; and (4) Hellam was
improperly awarded certain costs in a postjudgment order.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
in an opinion dated April 16, 2014, concluded that the issues
involving settlement credits are moot and affirmed the judgment.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the order awarding costs, and
remanded to the trial court the limited issue whether costs for
pretrial transcripts should be taxed.

The case is JAMES HELLAM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRANE CO.,
Defendant and Appellant, No. A138013, A139141 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/esatFx
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morse Diesel Awarded Summary Judgment in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
issued a decision and order on April 9, 2014, granting defendant
Morse Diesel, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing
plaintiffs' Labor Law Section 200 and all other claims asserted in
the asbestos-related personal injury action styled THOMAS HOUSTON
and ELLEN HOUSTON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190119/2012, Motion Seq. 006 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/cdbDk4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goulds' Summary Judgment Award in PI Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an
opinion dated April 23, 2014, a full-text copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/iAkydVfrom Leagle.com, affirmed a lower
court's decision granting summary judgment to Goulds Pumps, Inc.,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims alleging that they contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of their exposure to
asbestos contained in component parts of pumps manufactured by
Goulds.  The Superior Court held that summary judgment was
properly granted because the plaintiffs failed to make a prima
facie showing of causation.

The cases are ELBERT HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W.
CHESTERTON CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; FOSTER WHEELER CORP.;
GARLOCK, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.;
DURAMETALLIC CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., and MELRATH GASKET &
SUPPLY, Defendants, and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent;
MICHAEL GREEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.;
BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; FOSTER WHEELER CORP.; GARLOCK, INC.;
METROPOLITAN LIFE; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; INGERSOLL-RAND CO.
LTD.; MADSEN & HOWELL, INC.; DURAMETALLIC CORP.; WOOLSULATE CORP.;
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; and MELRATH GASKET & SUPPLY, Defendants, and
GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; GREGORY FAYER, Executor
of the Estate of THOMAS FAYER, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; DURAMETALLIC CORP.;
FOSTER WHEELER CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; METROPOLITAN LIFE;
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; MADSEN & HOWELL,
INC.; WOOLSULATE CORP.; and INGERSOLL-RAND CO. LTD., Defendants,
and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; and ANGELO MYSTRENA
and KATHLEEN MYSTRENA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
CO.; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC; DURAMETALLIC CORP.; FOSTER WHEELER
CORP.; METROPOLITAN LIFE; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; MADSEN & HOWELL,
INC.; WOOLSULATE CORP.; and INGERSOLL-RAND CO. LTD., Defendants,
and GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant-Respondent; Docket Nos. A-0778-
11T2, A-0779-11T2, A-4912-11T2, A-4913-11T2 (Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division).

Franklin P. Solomon argued the cause for appellants (Locks Law
Firm, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Solomon and James J. Pettit, on the
briefs).  The attorneys may be reached at:

         Franklin P. Solomon, Esq.
         James J. Pettit, Esq.
         LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
         800 Third Ave 11th Floor
         New York, NY 10022

Richard J. Mirra, Esq. -- rmirra@hoaglandlongo.com -- and Steven
F. Satz, Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- argued the cause for
respondent (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP,
attorneys; Mr. Mirra and Mr. Satz, of counsel and on the briefs).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra L. Townes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued an order on April 17, 2014, closing
the case styled WILLIAM JOHNAKIN, Plaintiff, v. NYC DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, No. 11-CV-4807 (SLT) (LB)
(E.D.N.Y.), after failing to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiff, a former inmate of the Anna M. Kross Center on
Rikers Island, was allowed by the Court in a prior order to file
an amended complaint with respect to his claim that Department of
Correction personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in allowing him to be exposed to friable asbestos.

A full-text copy of Judge Townes' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HCnndDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Dropped as Defendant in "Moseley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen C. Williams issued an order on April 23, 2014,
dismissing without prejudice defendant Consolidated Aluminum
Corporation from the asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit
styled DELORIS KIEFFER-MOSELEY, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEM
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-1313-MJR-DGW (S.D.
Ill.), and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court, Third
Judicial Circuit, in Madison County, Illinois.  A full-text copy
of Judge Williams' Decision is available at http://is.gd/krhqfq
from Leagle.com.

Delores J Kiefer-Moseley, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth V.
Heller, Esq. -- elizabeth@ghalaw.com -- at Goldenberg Heller et
al..

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl,
Royster et al..

Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Esq., at Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

CBS Corporation, a Deleware Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq., and Michael R. Dauphin,
Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et
al..

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant
and Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, Esq., at
Walker & Williams.

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

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin
J. Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- at HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al..

Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant
and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl,
Royster et al..

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

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

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

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

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at
McGuire Woods LLP.

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

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

Sunbeam Products, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill of Costs in "Kinser" Suit Partially Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned LARRY A.
KINSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 94-2282 (C.D. Ill.)., Judge Harold A. Baker of the United
States District Court for the Central District of Illinois issued
an order dated April 16, 2014, granted in part and denied in part
the motion for a bill of costs filed by defendant
CBS/Westinghouse.  The defendant's bill of costs is reduced by the
sum of $6,197.  The court allowed clerk fees of $226;
transcription fees of $12,558.35; printing, exemplification, and
copying costs of $25,537.46; and witness fees of $4,111.18. Costs
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1920 are awarded to the defendant and
taxed against the plaintiffs in the amount of $42,432.93 as part
of the judgment in the case.  A full-text copy of Judge Baker's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/51daNdfrom Leagle.com.

Larry A Kinser, Donna M Kinser, Paul W Gehrt, and Betty McSweeny,
Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of
Frankie D Pray Sr. From consolidated case 96-4025., Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael P Cascino, Esq., Adam Martin Mergenthaler,
Esq., and Robert G McCoy, Esq., at CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES
LTD.

CBS Corp, Defendant, represented by Daniel G Donahue, Esq., and
Jacob Daniel Sawyer, Esq. -- jsawyer@foleymansfield.com -- at
FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP; Paula Miles Burlison, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP,
Rebecca Sayrd Herbig, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP & Sandra Giannone Ezell,
BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP.

CBS Corp, successor by merger to CBS Corporation. From
consolidated case 96-2071., Defendant, represented by Daniel G
Donahue, Esq., and Jacob Daniel Sawyer, Esq., at FOLEY & MANSFIELD
PLLP; and Paula Miles Burlison, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP & Rebecca
Sayrd Herbig, BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP.

General Refractories Co, Defendant, represented by Gary B Cutler,
Esq. -- gcutler@offitkurman.com -- at OFFIT KURMAN ATTORNEYS AT
LAW & Jamie P Yadgaroff, Esq., at LAW OFFICES OF JAMIE P
YADGAROFF.

CBS Corp, Defendant, represented by Jacob Daniel Sawyer, Esq., at
FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP; and Paula Miles Burlison, Esq. --
paula.burlison@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP, R
Delacy Peters, Jr., Esq. -- R_Peters@gshllc.com -- at GONZALEZ
SAGGIO AND HARLAN LLC & Rebecca Sayrd Herbig, Esq. --
rebecca.herbig@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Edward
Kapshandy, Esq. -- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- at SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Carolina Court Dismisses "Lee" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued
an order dated April 11, 2014, granting the motions to dismiss
filed by defendants Ford Motor Company and Kawasaki Motors Corp.,
U.S.A., in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled
LARRY WINSLOWE LEE and SUSAN PROVOST LEE, Plaintiffs, v.
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; DANA COMPANIES LLC, sued individually and
as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company;
DEERE & COMPANY, d/b/a John Deere; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORMOSA
PLASTICS CORPORATION U.S.A., sued individually and as parent,
alter ego and successor-in-interest to J-M Manufacturing Company
and to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, d/b/a
National Automotive Parts Association (a.k.a. NAPA); GRINNEL LLC,
d/b/a Grinnell Corporation; HAJOCA CORPORATION, sued individually
and as successor-in-interest to Hughes Supply; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Bendix Corporation f/k/a Allied-Signal, Inc.; J-M
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., sued individually and as parent and
alter ego to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation; KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP.,
U.S.A.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PFIZER INC.; PNEUMO
ABEX LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Abex
Corporation and as succesor-in-interest to American Brakeblok;
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; and YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.;
Defendants, No. 5:13-cv-826-FL (E.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Flanagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ucFVKZfrom
Leagle.com.

Larry Winslowe Lee, and Susan Provost Lee, Plaintiffs, represented
by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet
Ward Black, Ward Black Law.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Esq. -- csprinkle@hsblawfirm.com -- Moffatt G.
McDonald, Esq. -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Scott E. Frick, Esq.
-- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- and William David Conner, Esq. --
dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- at Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Esq., Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq., Scott
E. Frick, Esq., and William David Conner, Esq., at Haynsworth
Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq.,
at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Formosa Plastics Corporation U.S.A., sued individually and as
parent, alter ego and successor-in-interest to J-M Manufacturing
Company and to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Daniel B. White, Esq., Sarah M. Bowman, Esq., and Stephanie G.
Flynn, Esq., at Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Heather Bell
Adams, Esq. -- heather.adams@alston.com -- and Matthew Patrick
McGuire, Esq. -- matt.mcguire@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, doing business as National Automotive Parts
Association (aka NAPA), Defendant, represented by Ryan P.
Ethridge, Esq. -- ryan.ethridge@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird
LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq., at
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Hajoca Corporation, sued individually and as successor-in-interest
to Hughes Supply, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq.,
at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- at Davis &
Hamrick, LLP.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., sued individually and as parent
and alter ego to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Daniel B. White, Esq., Sarah M. Bowman, Esq., and Stephanie G.
Flynn, Esq., at Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- at
Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Esq., at
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Pneumo Abex LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Abex Corporation and as successor-in-interest to American
Brakeblok, Defendant, represented by:

         Timothy W. Bouch, Esq.
         LEATH, BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP
         92 Broad Street
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Tel: (843) 937-8811

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Esq., Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq., Scott E. Frick,
Esq., and William David Conner, Esq., at Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd,
P.A..

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Defendant, represented by
Timothy W. Bouch, Esq., at Leath Bouch & Seekings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in "McCormick" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary
order on April 10, 2014, affirming the ruling of a lower court
awarding a plaintiff in an asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit $980,000 and that court's order denying a defendant's
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the
alternative, a new trial.  The case is KELLY McCORMICK,
Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of KIT L.
McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLEAVER BROOKS CO., INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-704 (2nd Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/aDzSc2from Leagle.com.

KYLE A. SHAMBERG, Esq., (Samuel M. Meirowitz, Esq., on the brief),
at Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, New York, for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

SUZANNE M. HALBARDIER, Esq., (David Schultz, Esq., on the brief),
at Barry, McTiernan & Moore, LLC, New York, New York, for
Defendant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in "Kestenbaum" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued an opinion dated April 15, 2014, affirming the
Supreme Court, New York County's order entered Jan. 6, 2014,
denying defendant Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary
judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned
IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ALICE
KESTENBAUM, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DUREZ CORP., ET AL.,
Defendants, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, 12223,
190421/11(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/6AFyPjfrom Leagle.com.

Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Scott A. Chesin, Esq. --
sachesin@mayerbrown.com -- of counsel), for appellant.  Levy
Konigsebrg, LLP, New York (Brendan J. Tully, Esq., of counsel),
for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in Suits v. Jenkins Bros.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued an opinion on April 17, 2014, affirmed the
Oct. 29, 2013, ruling by the Supreme Court, New York County,
denying Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the
complaints against Jenkins Bros. in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits styled ROBERT GERMAIN, SR., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants; LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; DANIEL E. VALENSI, ETC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., ET AL, Defendants,
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant; VASHTEE ANTLE, ETC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL.,
Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant;
JANEED KHAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 3M COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS SUCCESSOR TO MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET
AL., Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant;
LAURENCE CUNNINGHAM, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 3M
COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellant; 12249, 190281/12, 190340/12, 190360/12,
190512/12, 190129/13(N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/55fCtQfrom Leagle.com.

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York (Lloyd A. Gura, Esq.,
of counsel), for appellant. Belluck & Fox, LLP, New York (Seth A.
Dymond, Esq., of counsel), for respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "McKim" Suit Conditionally OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
issued a decision and order on April 16, 2014, in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit styled BRUCE McKIM, as Executor
for the Estate of ROBERT McKIM, and DONNA McKIM, Individually,
Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants,
Docket No. 190225/12, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.),
conditionally granting the motion to dismiss the complaint filed
by defendants Williams & Davis Boiler, Inc., Columbia Boiler
Company of Pottstown, and Paker Boiler Company.  The Order was
conditioned on the entry of a stipulation of all of the defendants
to the action waiving any jurisdictional and statute of
limitations defenses in any action commenced by the plaintiffs in
a different more suitable forum other than New York.  A full-text
copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ZOQBkpfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Reverses Ruling in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert B. Reeves, a career employee of Illinois Central Railroad,
sued Mississippi Valley Silica, Inc., for lung injuries that
allegedly were caused by his inhalation of silica (a component of
sand) while employed with Illinois Central.  R.B. also alleged
that he inhaled both asbestos and silica, which caused his
injuries.  The case was dismissed without prejudice in 2006, and
the present suit was filed against 32 named defendants in the
Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County in
2007.  Robert Reeves died in 2010, before the litigation was
concluded, and the case then was pursued by his wrongful death
beneficiaries.  After trial in May 2012 against the sole remaining
defendant, Valley, the jury found economic damages in the amount
of $149,464.40 and noneconomic damages of $1.5 million, with
Valley 15% at fault.  The jury also awarded punitive damages of
$50,000, and the trial court awarded attorney fees of $257,701.50.
Although Valley was found only 15% at fault, the trial court
determined that the law in place in 2002, when the original
complaint was filed, should apply.  Accordingly, the statutory
caps on punitive and noneconomic damages enacted in 2004 were
inapplicable and Valley was jointly and severally liable for 50%
of the judgment.  Ultimately, the court determined that Valley
owed the Reeves beneficiaries $824,732.20, plus $50,000 in
punitive damages, and $257,701.50 in attorney fees, for a total of
$1,132,433.70.  Valley appealed.

In an April 17, 2014, decision, the Supreme Court of Mississippi
held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to
identify Valley's sand as the proximate cause of Robert Reeves's
injuries as a matter of law.  Therefore, the Supreme Court
reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in
favor of Mississippi Valley Silica.

The case is MISSISSIPPI VALLEY SILICA COMPANY, INC., v. GWENDOLYN
M. REEVES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF
ROBERT B. REEVES, DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF ROBERT B. REEVES, DECEASED, No. 2012-CA-01702-SCT
(Miss.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SJ3hAjfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Resumes at Middle School
---------------------------------------------------------
Casey Conley, writing for Foster's Daily Democrat, reported that
SAU 56 officials say all remaining asbestos in Somersworth Middle
School, in New Hampshhire, will be gone by next fall.

Crews will begin removing floor tiles and adhesive material
containing the cancer-causing fiber from the 52-year-old middle
school shortly after the school year ends, Superintendent Jeni
Mosca said. Workers also will continue similar abatement efforts
this summer at the high school, which was built in 1956.

"That means coming in, getting the abatement done, getting the air
quality testing done, getting all the tiles down and getting all
the pieces back in place," Mosca said of the project.

The work is projected to cost at least $53,000. The City Council
allocated the money as part of the 2014-15 capital improvement
plan.

The asbestos-laden floor tiles at Somersworth Middle School are
covered by carpet, which eliminates any risk of exposure, SAU 56
facilities director Andy Lucier said.

At the high school, the tiles are covered with a second later of
asbestos-free tiles.

"Basically, if it's encapsulated, it's considered safe," he said.

The district has been replacing sections of carpet at the middle
school for at least a decade. While that work was under way, crews
also removed the toxic tiles and adhesive material as well as the
failing carpet, Lucier said.

This summer's abatement at the high school will be confined to one
classroom. Workers will rip up both layers of tile and put now
another layer.

"We have been doing asbestos removal for many summers," Mosca
said. "We've just been doing little portions at a time because
it's an expensive process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Combs Site Where Fibro was Illegally Handled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Kessler, writing for Newsday, reported that federal
agents raided an abandoned aviation factory in Port Jefferson
Station, in New York, for signs of unlawful asbestos handling,
months after a Suffolk construction firm was cited there for
stripping the cancer-causing material from metal pipes.

The raid by Environmental Protection Administration agents
involves looking into the treatment of hazardous materials from
the long-shuttered Lawrence Aviation factory by DFF Farms Corp.,
owned by Thomas Datre Jr., sources said.

Robert Nardoza, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office for the
Eastern District of New York, declined to comment beyond saying
that the EPA's probe of the site is ongoing.

It also comes as Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota expands
his separate probe into asbestos dumping in the county. Spota said
that 32,000 tons of the toxic material had been dumped illegally
at Roberto Clemente Park in the Town of Islip. Spota said "at
least one unscrupulous contractor" was involved in dumping debris
at the park.

Spota said Datre Jr.'s company as well as that of his father,
Thomas Datre, have been searched by investigators looking into
illegal dumping there.

Lawrence Aviation was shut in 2003 after solvents, oils and other
waste had been dumped there for decades. The 126-acre parcel was
declared a federal Superfund site in 2000 after officials
determined the waste had created a hazardous underground plume
that contaminated the area.

Sources said EPA criminal division agents were trying to determine
whether asbestos had been illegally released there or in the
surrounding area in recent months. They also want to know if
asbestos was illegally removed from the factory and dumped
elsewhere in violation of federal law.

In December, Thomas Datre Jr. and his company were cited by a
state inspector -- while salvaging metal at the Lawrence Aviation
site -- for failure to have both a valid asbestos handling license
and valid asbestos certification and training, according to state
records.

EPA civil officials at the time noticed clouds of white powder at
the Datre worksite and called in inspectors from the New York
State Department of Labor, which supervises asbestos removal at
state work sites, sources said.

Nearly six months later, EPA agents are focused on how much
asbestos at the site has been removed from pipes and other metal
fixtures and placed in containers on the grounds.

Outside one of the buildings sat a large blue garbage bin, partly
filled with discarded building materials. The bin was labeled with
a sticker from a company that transports asbestos. Signs on walls
of surrounding buildings warned, "Danger Asbestos Cancer And
Respiratory Disease Hazard. Respiration Protection Required Beyond
This Point."

Contractors spent part of the day building a small frame tent-like
structure, covered in plastic, where materials could be tested for
the presence of asbestos.

Datre Jr.'s attorney, Kevin Kearon of Garden City, said his client
had a permit to dump "permissible" amounts of fill last summer at
Roberto Clemente Park. Kearon said Datre Jr. had engaged in no
wrongdoing at either the Lawrence Aviation site or the park.

In November, a park ranger wrote in an incident report to Islip
officials and obtained by Newsday that material dumped at Roberto
Clemente Park -- ostensibly for new soccer fields -- contained
large boulders and was not suitable as an athletic surface. The
ranger also stated in the report that a driver of a truck hauling
the materials said he was from "Datre."

Thomas Datre Jr.'s father, Thomas Datre, owns Ronkonkoma-based
Datre/Daytree, which includes several debris-hauling and
construction companies.

A spokesman for the state labor department, Chris White, said that
the investigations into Datre Jr. and Gerald Cohen, the owner of
Lawrence Aviation, and the person who hired DFF Farms Corps. for
the job, have been completed, but he could not comment further. An
attorney for Cohen could not be reached for comment.
State inspectors cited both Datre and Cohen, and their businesses,
for violating state asbestos control laws in December, according
to state records.

"While operating an excavator during metal salvage operations, Mr.
Datre broke and removed asbestos insulation that covered pipes," a
state inspector noted in the records. "Mr. Datre does not possess
NY State certification to handle or disturb asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Led to Death of Former Resort Welder
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gazette reported that a Blackpool, England, man died as a
result of years of exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard.

Coroner Alan Wilson was told 70-year-old Roy Garnham's death was
caused by decades as a metal welder, where he often worked with
the fatal material.

An inquest was opened in March after Mr Garnham, of Ascot Road,
Layton, died in February, with Dr Mark Sissons, a pathologist at
Blackpool Victoria Hospital, saying a post mortem examination
showed traits relating to asbestos illness.  He added: "Having
examined the lungs and taken samples I was able to confirm this
was asbestosis. He clearly had this.

"I think what led to his death was a chest infection. He was being
treated for this.

"He died as a result of bronchial pneumonia due to asbestosis."

Dr Sissons added the walls of the lungs are normally thin to allow
oxygen to enter the bloodstream, but Mr Garnham's lungs had begun
to calcify and form plaques -- a common sign of exposure to
asbestos.

Coroner Alan Wilson added: "He (Mr Garner) worked with asbestos on
a daily basis.

"For 10 years from 1958 he worked with a welding company in
Nuneaton.

"He then held another position working with asbestos for two
years, before in 1970 starting work with a third welding company."

The court was told in 1976 Mr Garnham became a bus driver, which
he continued until 2010.  But it was also revealed in recent years
Mr Garnham had started to visit hospital with chest complaints.

Delivering a verdict of death by industrial disease, Mr Wilson
said: "Mr Garnham worked with the asbestos from the age of 16.

"He didn't begin to feel breathless until his 50s, when he began
to be treated for it.

"He was exposed to asbestos during the course of his working
life."

Mr Garnham is survived by his wife Patricia and their children
Jane and Dean.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Firm Fined $16,137 Over Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bonacci, writing for MassLive.com, reported that a company in
Worcester, Massachusetts, has been penalized $16,137.50 by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for failing
to follow asbestos removal regulations during the replacement of
windows at a Southbridge Street condominium tower.
"Companies conducting renovation projects must first determine if
any asbestos-containing materials will be involved," said Lee
Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, in a press release.

During a 2013 inspection, MassDEP employees found that window
caulking and glazing containing asbestos was being improperly
removed at the residential building, according to MassDEP. The
company was replacing windows at the site, but had not notified
MassDEP and was not properly handling and storing the asbestos-
containing material.

Regulations require asbestos-containing materials to be removed
wet and be sealed into leak-tight containers with asbestos warning
labels. These measures are designed to keep the asbestos fibers
from being released into the air and keep nearby areas from
becoming contaminated, according to MassDEP.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following prescribed
regulatory work practices is imperative to protect workers as well
as the general public. Failure to do so will result in penalties,
as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring
costs," said Adams.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $10,000 of
the penalty and have the remaining $6,137.50 be suspended as long
as the company does not have another violation within one year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumpers Sought by Authorities
----------------------------------------------------
Bianca Perez, writing for Fairfield City Champion, reported that
investigations are under way after asbestos was illegally dumped
in Carramar and Smithfield -- the second time in three weeks the
deadly substance has been found dumped in the area.

The material was found at the entrance of Carrawood Park, off
Quest Avenue, Carramar, and at Rosford Reserve, Smithfield.

A Fairfield Council spokesman said both sites had been secured,
with Fire and Rescue NSW (HAZMAT) called to clean it up.

"Fairfield Council contractors will carry out testing to confirm
the presence of any hazardous substances," she said. "The council
takes appropriate action to address all reported incidents of any
and all dumped materials."

The carcinogenic material will be taken to the SITA site at
Eastern Creek, where it is broken down and disposed of.

Asbestos was also found illegally dumped in Springfield Street,
Old Guildford, and the entrance to Knight Park in Donald Street,
Fairfield, on April 20.

The spokesman said the council was determined to catch those
responsible. The council has put cameras in parks across its local
government area.

The maximum penalty for an individual caught disposing of waste
deemed harmful to the environment is $1 million and/or seven
years' jail.

A corporation found guilty of dumping environmentally harmful
waste is liable for a maximum penalty of $5 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Commends Introduction of Fibro Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR), made the following statement regarding the
introduction of the "Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT)
Act of 2014" (S. 2319) in the U.S. Senate. The legislation would
require asbestos personal injury settlement trusts, which
currently operate with little oversight and transparency, to
report on their claims.

"We applaud Senator Flake's effort to shed light on the growing
number of bankruptcy trusts that play a significant role in
today's asbestos compensation system. Fraud and abuse in the
system drain the funds available to deserving claimants and force
solvent companies, as well as their shareholders and employees, to
pay more than their fair share when claimants 'double dip' in
court and in the trust systems. The FACT Act would diminish the
damaging economic ripple effect of these abuses.

"The Senate should act to ensure that the asbestos compensation
system is working as intended -- especially in light of a federal
court opinion last January in the Garlock asbestos bankruptcy that
revealed manipulation and withholding evidence are a 'regular
practice by many plaintiffs' firms.' The FACT Act's simple
disclosure requirement will deter such fraud without impacting
legitimate asbestos claims."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Found Illegally Dumped in Park
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Post reported that Eurobodalla Shire Council, in Australia, is
calling for help from the community to identify the person or
people responsible for illegally dumping waste, which might
contain asbestos, in the Eurobodalla National Park.

The council is working with the Environmental Protection Authority
(EPA) and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to
investigate the incident at Pedros Point Road, Moruya Heads, which
was reported to the council.

Mayor Lindsay Brown said NPWS would clean up the dumped material
and that council was seeking help from the public to identify
those responsible so they could pay for the costs.

Cr Brown said the cost of illegal dumping could add up to millions
of dollars every year and it looked like the problem was not going
away, with the EPA reporting an increase in illegally dumped
waste.

"Illegal dumping is an enormous problem in our region and unless
we identify the people responsible, the costs of the clean-up are
met by the ratepayers of Southern Councils Group members, Bega,
Eurobodalla, Kiama, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, Wingecarribee and
Wollongong councils," he said.

"The Southern Councils Group is working to target illegal dumping
in local bushland and natural areas by conducting regular blitzes
and issuing offenders with on-the-spot fines."

On-the-spot fines for illegal dumping are issued by rangers and
can cost between $750 and $1500 for individuals and $1500 and
$5000 for corporations.

More substantial fines can also be issued if court action is
taken.

Cr Brown urged residents to make use of the waste services and
facilities that council provided, including annual kerbside and
chemical collections, rather than resort to dumping.

Taking your rubbish to council's waste facilities can be much
cheaper than fines issued by the Land and Environment Court," he
said.

If you have any information that will help the investigation,
phone the EPA hotline on 131 555 or the council on 4474 1000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holroyd Helps Residents Solve Fibro Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Grennan, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that getting rid of old asbestos building materials is so
expensive that many renovators and builders resort to illegal
dumping of the highly toxic material. Apart from the cost of
employing specialist demolition trades, the local tip charges
hundreds, often thousands, of dollars to take it.

Holroyd Council, in the heart of Sydney's western "fibro belt" and
with some of the strictest rules on renovating fibro houses, has
taken the initiative to alleviate both the financial and
environmental pain of removing asbestos. It has picked up two
awards in the process.

Last year the council trialled a free collection of up to 10
square metres of non-friable, or bonded, asbestos waste at
residential properties to minimise its disposal in garbage bins
and public places -- possibly the first such service in Australia.

According to Brooke Littman, the council's environmental health
and waste education officer, demand for the service has been
overwhelming, with 8.92 tonnes of asbestos collected from 136
households over nine collection days since last June. Three more
collection days will be held by the end of next month and there is
a waiting list.

"The council would like to continue the service beyond its trial
phase as our community both wants and needs it. However,
continuation in its current form will be dependent on further
funding," Ms Littman said.

By "carpooling" asbestos on each collection day, the council was
able to reduce costs significantly compared with the costs if each
resident opted to transport the material individually to Eastern
Creek, where the minimum charge is $250.

The 136 households saved $34,000 in disposal charges. The tip
costs to the council were $3177 excluding transport.

The initiative has won an asbestos management award from Local
Government NSW and an award from Local Government Professionals
Australia NSW.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk Closes NZ School for Another Week
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Ryan, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that the
potential for asbestos contamination at a primary school will keep
students away.

Bayfield School in Auckland's Herne Bay closed after tests showed
the possibility that asbestos dust had drifted outside a contained
worksite on the school grounds.  Students were kept home from
school and they had been attending nearby Ponsonby Primary School,
where they were being taught in the school hall and additional
classrooms.

Bayfield Board of Trustees' chairman David McPherson said in a
statement that the school would be closed until all demolition
work was completed.  The school was demolishing classrooms on site
due to leaky building problems, and the school swimming pool was
also being removed.

"The safety of our students and teaching staff is paramount, so we
won't re-open the school until we are assured, through the Board's
independent review process, that the site is safe," Mr McPherson
said.

Once the school is re-opened, building would not go ahead until
the board could verify the work would be undertaken safely, he
said.

Two investigations were underway into the process of the asbestos
removal.

"We will await the results of these investigations, which will
also be shared with the community," Mr McPherson said.

"In fairness to the various parties involved in those
investigations it is important that we don't jump to conclusions
about the process that was undertaken."

An asbestos-contaminated building was demolished during the school
holidays, however the demolished material was not removed from the
school site.  There was concern that during that time asbestos
dust had travelled from the work site to the rest of the school
grounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition Company Fined for Dumping Fibro Waste
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONENews reported that a demolition and digger hire company has
been fined $67,687 for illegally disposing of asbestos-
contaminated demolition waste and clearing native vegetation.

The charges relate to illegal activities at the defendant's
property, including disposing of demolition waste containing
asbestos in April last year, clearing native vegetation in a
special ecological area and illegal filling between August 2010
and April last year.

The prosecution was brought jointly by Tauranga City Council and
Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the affected site is now listed
with both councils as contaminated.

In 2013 the two councils both received complaints about demolition
material containing asbestos being taken from a church demolition
site in Fraser Street to the Grange Road site bordering the
reserve. The demolition work was being carried out by C Side
Services, a company owned by Stephen Craig Walling.

Samples dug up at the Grange Road site owned by 'C' Side Services
tested positive for white, brown and blue asbestos, and Mr Walling
was issued an abatement notice to stop work. He said he was
putting clean-fill, dirt and concrete onto the property to form a
driveway to a house site and to create a grassed garden area with
exotic palms. He said he had taken 15 truckloads of demolition
waste from the church to the Grange Road site and had also allowed
two other contractors to deposit concrete and dirt there.

A total of 372 square metres of the Special Ecological Area and
its five metre buffer zone had been cleared of vegetation and a
concluded that material containing asbestos at the site posed an
immediate and long-term risk to human health if no management
controls were put in place.

The fines include $22,687 for asbestos disposal, $22,000 for
clearing the special ecological area and $23,000 for illegal
filling. The defendant is also required to re-vegetate the area
and remediate the contaminated land.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group's Fury Over Lawyers' 25% Cut of Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Merrick, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that,
"Severely will people are going to suffer because of this."

That is the view of a Hampshire, England, asbestos support group
on Government changes to the compensation system for people who
are diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma.

Hampshire Asbestos Support and Awareness Group has condemned a new
deal that could allow lawyers to swipe up to 25 per cent of
damages payments to people diagnosed with the disease.  And the
illness is common in Hampshire as the substance was used
frequently at the docks in Southampton and railway works in
Eastleigh.

Lynne Squibb, of Hampshire Asbestos Support and Awareness Group,
said it was "turning a terminal illness into a competitive
market".

Lynne lost her father Dave Salisbury to the disease in 2005 aged
72 and set up the group with sister Diane to help others going
through similar traumatic experiences.  She said: "We are
incredibly disappointed that the Government has gone down this
path. They wanted to do this because they believed it would make
claims quicker and more efficient but I beg to differ.

"As someone who has lost a family member to mesothelioma I
couldn't think of anything worse than having to shop around for
the best deal.

"The Government has missed the point with this and in trying to
improve the claims system have made it much more difficult. If it
isn't broken, don't fix it."

Solicitors said the threatened introduction of fixed costs would
allow insurers to drag out legal cases, piling pressure on the
terminally ill to agree lower settlements.

In evidence to a committee of MPs, they said the changes would
leave sufferers "significantly worse off".  And they accused
ministers of allowing insurance companies to call the shots,
striking an "agreement behind closed doors".

Ian McFall, of Thompsons Solicitors, which has offices across the
UK, said: "This will leave claimants significantly worse off.

"Some firms struggling for survival will look to take the maximum
'success fee', which will be to the disadvantage of claimants."

Nearly 2,400 people, mostly men, die from mesothelioma every year,
usually within nine months of diagnosis.

A 'standardised mortality ratio' (SMR) is used to identify
blackspots, where a figure of 100 would be the expected number of
deaths, given the age of the population.

The figures are far, far higher in Southampton (282), Eastleigh
(253), Gosport (240) and Fareham (208) -- and even in Winchester
(139), New Forest (133) and Test Valley (130).

The controversy follows the end of "no win no fee" agreements,
which guaranteed full compensation to successful claimants -- and
insured them against the cost of losing.  They were restricted in
the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO)
Act, which has now been extended to mesothelioma cases.

The move was blocked in the Lords, but overturned by the
Government, after a "review" widely attacked as a sham --
prompting the inquiry by the justice select committee.

Ministers have insisted there is no "specific justification" for
treating mesothelioma differently from other personal injury
cases.

Giving evidence later, Derek Adamson, of insurers DWF, denied
firms deliberately delayed cases, insisting that increased their
own costs.  And the Association of British Insurers argued there
were support groups to help mesothelioma victims find lawyers and
negotiate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scare Shuts Down Blacktown Hospital Upgrade
------------------------------------------------------------
News.com reported that more than 100 workers and members of the
public have potentially been exposed to asbestos after it was
found at Blacktown Hospital, in New South Wales, Australia.

CFMEU spokesman Rebel Hanlon said construction on the hospital's
$320 million upgrade would be shut down "indefinitely" until the
harmful material was completely removed from the site.

Mr Hanlon said contaminated soil had been found near the main
entrance at Blacktown Hospital, in a nearby carpark and the
childcare centre, potentially putting the general public and young
children at risk.

The potential of asbestos exposure for the 130 workers at the site
was "quite significant" Mr Hanlon said.

"Workers who have put their hard hats on contaminated soil or to
have rubbed (the soil) on his work clothes and brought it home --
there's a potential of exposure for (their families) as well," he
said.

"We're not trying to scare people but we have a duty to notify
people."

Contractors were hired to remove the asbestos from the site
completely six months ago before it was handed over to
construction company Laing O'Rouke.

"My concern is that someone was paid with taxpayer funded money to
remove (the asbestos)," he said. "This (process) was with the
state government's money."

A NSW Health Infastructure spokeswoman said the construction site
would be temporarily closed until results on the recylced material
were received.

NSW Health Infrastructure said public and the patients were not at
risk of the asbestos.  But she said none of the areas were
designated public pedestrian pathways and the public and patients
were not at risk.

"There is no impact on the operations of the existing Blacktown
Hospital or the childcare centre located adjacent to the
constructon site.

"Health Infrastructure has been advised the contractor has
required certification to use the recycled material on site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PennDOT to Remove Asphalt Containing Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Reilly and Tim Stuhldreher, writing for Lancaster Online,
reported that a busy stretch of New Holland Avenue, in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, is scheduled to be closed during daytime hours.

Crews will be milling the street during the day, proceeding east
to west, and repaving it at night.  And they will be wearing haz-
mat suits and taking steps to minimize dust, because some of the
asphalt contains low levels of asbestos.

The work area extends from East Walnut Street to East Ross Street.
The activity is part of an ongoing resurfacing project that began
in 2012 and includes Orange Street and part of Route 23 east of
Route 30.

This is the only section where asbestos-treated pavement was
found, PennDOT spokesman Greg Penny said.

It wasn't unusual for asphalt used in the 1960s and early 1970s to
contain asbestos. It helped reinforce paving materials and slow
deterioration from road salt, according to the Mesothelioma Cancer
Alliance.

The concentrations found on New Holland Avenue are small, ranging
from 1 percent to 3 percent, and 19 of 24 core samples taken from
the road showed no asbestos at all, Penny said.

Still, safety measures are being implemented.

"Normally, we'd only close one lane and have flaggers directing
traffic, but because we will have workers wearing (hazardous
materials) suits because of the asbestos, we didn't want to have
people driving through with their windows down," Penny said.

From 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily, portions of that stretch of New
Holland Avenue will be closed to motorists, pedestrians and
bicycle riders.

Motor traffic will be detoured using adjacent roads. There will be
two sets of detours, one for the first two days of work, the
second for the next three.

From 4 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., New Holland Avenue will be reopened to
traffic in the work area.  Then from 7:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.,
PennDOT crews will be back in the work area paving over the road
surface that was milled during the day.  During those hours,
traffic will be limited to a single lane controlled by flaggers.

Asbestos is tightly bound in the asphalt, and does not become
airborne under normal roadway use, Penny said.

Tearing up a roadway, however, involves drilling, cutting,
excavation and milling, all of which can generate clouds of dust.

To prevent that, PennDOT will spray down the asphalt as it is
being removed, and keep it wet as it is loaded onto trucks and
carted away.  It will be disposed of at a site approved by the
state Department of Environmental Protection for handling such
waste.

"Air quality sampling and analysis will be performed anytime this
material is disturbed to ensure that the precautionary measures
are effective," PennDOT said.

Dealing with asphalt that contains asbestos "is not common, but
it's not rare either," Penny said.

The removal process meets state and federal guidelines, he said.
PennDOT's stated precautions are sufficient to prevent migration
of airborne dust from the work site, a DEP spokeswoman said.
New Holland Avenue between East Walnut and East Ross streets is
largely residential.

PennDOT is telling residents to stay inside while the milling
takes place.

Penny sent the Intelligencer Journal/New Era a copy of a flier
delivered to residents in the area. It directs them to "minimize
their outdoor activities, keep windows and doors shut, and
consider turning off HVAC systems that draw in outside air during
the removal of the asphalt material when work operations are
occurring immediately adjacent to their property."

PennDOT asked School District of Lancaster officials to direct
students who normally walk along New Holland Avenue to McCaskey
High School, Wickersham Elementary School and Lincoln Junior High
School, which are located one block east, to take another route
during the work period.

SDL posted notices on its website and Facebook page, spokeswoman
Kelly Burkholder said.

City officials also have been notified of the project.

The work is being done by Pennsy Supply Inc. of Annville.

The asbestos precautions make the milling more expensive than
normal, Penny said: about $14 per square foot, versus $3.80 per
square foot.

For the New Holland Avenue segment, that raises the cost of the
milling phase from about $63,450 to about $233,800, he said.
The overall project cost is $3.5 million, PennDOT said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Collegiate Governors Fined for Fibro Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Northern Ireland reported that the governors of an east
Belfast grammar school have been fined after asbestos was found in
buildings being used as a nursery school.

In 2012, asbestos was found in buildings rented out by Bloomfield
Collegiate prep school to a nursery.

Bloomfield's board of governors pleaded guilty to three breaches
of health and safety law.  They were fined GBP7,500, plus costs of
GBP1,750.

The judge at Belfast Crown Court said he accepted the school and
its board did not breach regulations deliberately, but added: "It
is a concern children were being exposed, especially children of
such a tender age."

Not surveyed

The prep department comprises smaller buildings on the school's
main campus.  It was used as primary school until June 2011, and
then used as a nursery.

During the hearings, it emerged that the Department of Education
had undertaken an asbestos survey of Bloomfield's main school in
2004 but this did not include the prep department.

The court heard that the potential presence of asbestos was raised
by the school's new principal in October 2011, when concerns were
expressed that the smaller building had not been surveyed for
asbestos in 2004.

In May 2012, the school carried out a survey of the prep building,
and asbestos was found in and around cupboards, shelves, behind
the blackboards and in the hallway.

The HSENI (Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland) was
notified and it immediately carried out its own examination of the
building, where "elevated levels" of asbestos were found.

Financial difficulties

Prosecuting lawyers said the board was aware there was a potential
problem in June 2011, but did not do anything until May the
following year.

However a defence lawyer argued that the school "mistakenly"
believed the prep school had been surveyed in 2004 and that when
the issue was raised by the principal in 2011 he was "remarkably
proactive".

The lawyer said the principal contacted the HSENI and the person
who ran the nursery as well as informing parents and holding
public meetings.

The court also heard that the school is undergoing financial
difficulties and is now controlled by the Department of Education,
having previously been run as a voluntary grammar school.

A defence lawyer said the school "has no capacity to raise any
income" and has "no ability to pay its debtors".

The judge said he accepted there was no deliberate intention to
expose anyone to the substance and the offences were not
"financially motivated".

He added: "It is clear that the individuals concerned and the
members of the board have shown remorse and that it is obvious
from the actions that were taken once this material was
discovered."

Ronan Magee, head of the education group for the HSENI, said:
"HSENI takes this opportunity to remind everyone responsible for
the school premises of duty to manage the risks presented by
asbestos containing materials (ACMs)."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire, Fibro Close University Biology Building
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the University of Windsor, in Ontario,
Canada, closed its biology building after a small fire broke out
in one of the labs.

Dennis Higgs, an associate professor and the school's head of
biology, said the incident happened in the ceiling above his lab.

"There was a bang and some smoke," he said.

Higgs said Windsor Fire and Rescue responded.

"In their efforts to find the source of the smoke, they exposed
some of the asbestos fibers we have and they shut down the
building," Higgs said.

He said no one was injured but that there was a question about the
air quality after the asbestos was exposed.

The University of Windsor had no timetable as to when the building
would open again.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Extends Work on Route 42
-----------------------------------------------
Luke Marshall, writing for Citizen's News, reported that work on
the retaining wall along the northbound lane of Route 42, in
Connecticut, is expected to continue until August.

Supervising Engineer Matthew Cleary and Assistant District
Engineer John Dunham of the state's Department of Transportation
gave an update on the work during the Board of Selectmen.  The
project was started in July 2013 to replace the two existing metal
walls. Cleary said the walls needed to be replaced because of
large areas of rust and the soil behind the walls was spilling
onto the shoulder of the road.

The wall will be replaced by a large concrete wall set to look
like large concrete bricks. When finished it will be approximately
two feet wide, 139 feet long and rise in height from eight feet to
just over 10 feet.

The work was originally supposed to have wrapped up in November
2013. However, the crew ran into asbestos, which set the project
completion date back to Aug. 18, 2014.

The discovery of asbestos also caused the project's cost to
increase $445,859. It was originally slated to cost $1.97 million.
The state is paying for the repairs.

Cleary said the wall that is currently there is a bin wall, which
consists of boxes made of metal walls that are coated on the
inside with asbestos.

The asbestos posed a problem because the wall needs to be
reinforced with rebar and to do so means drilling holes into it,
Cleary said. The drilling, however, would cause the asbestos to
become airborne.  Cleary said the crews had to cut holes in the
outer wall, which took a while because of the asbestos remediation
needed while cutting.  The contractor designed a lancing system
that allowed workers to punch through the wall, into the dirt and
rock, leaving the casings remained in place and without disturbing
the asbestos, he said.

These casings will provide a path for the 30-foot rebar to be
drilled into the earth behind the wall.

"So now we can completely avoid touching that metal with the
drill," Cleary said.

Selectman Peter Betkoski asked what would happen to the rotting
metal wall currently along the road.

Cleary said the crews will install the concrete wall right up
against the metal wall and let it continue to rot away.

Dunham said the wall is designed to encapsulate the previous wall
and prevent the asbestos from getting out into the atmosphere.

The work will continue during which Route 42 will be reduced from
four lanes down to two.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Fibro Dumped in Stockholds Lane
--------------------------------------------------------
Laura Burnip, writing for Hertfordshire Mercury, reported that an
investigation has been launched after a substance which appears to
be asbestos was dumped on a lane along which children walk to
school in Old Hall Green, in Hertfordshire, England.

Mum-of-two Sarah Jackson has called for action after 24 bags of
building material were dumped in Stockholds Lane.  And
Hertfordshire police confirmed the force was investigating, and
appealed for information and witnesses to the incident.

Ms Jackson said: "All the children walk that way to school, people
walk their dogs up and down there.

"It's the only through route up to Puckeridge.

"We're all fed up with it.

"It's highly dangerous stuff."

Ms Jackson said 16 sacks had appeared in the road on May 4. After
reporting the fly-tipping to East Herts Council, the rubbish was
taken away five days later.

But after the same thing happened, she said she was still waiting
for the bags to be taken away -- with more having appeared in the
meantime.

The 42-year-old, who moved to the hamlet four years ago, said this
had not been a problem in the past.  She said: "We've not had a
problem with asbestos.

"It's started in the past couple of weeks."

A spokesman for Herts police said the problem had been reported.

She said: "We are investigating.

"The offence occurred between midnight on May 9 and May 11 at
9.35am.

"Between those dates, bags of broken up asbestos have been fly-
tipped."

She said anyone who had information about the offence should
contact Herts police on the non-emergency number 101 quoting crime
reference number A5/14/185.

Alternatively they can contact the charity Crimestoppers
anonymously on 0800 555111.

"If you have got any information that could help us, or know who
it was, please get in touch," added the spokesman.

A spokesman for East Herts Council said the dumped asbestos was in
the process of being dealt with by the authority.

She said: "We are aware of it. We have removed one lot and we are
removing another one.

"We had to get a specialist company to remove it.

"Not only is it very irresponsible behaviour, it also costs the
council a lot of money.

"We will investigate the fly-tipping as we always do.

"We will carry out an investigation and prosecute where we can.

"We do prosecute and we certainly will take any measures we can to
find out who the perpetrators are."

Fly-tipping of controlled waste is a serious criminal offence
which carries a fine of up to GBP50,000 and/or one year
imprisonment.

If the case is very serious and goes to crown court an unlimited
fine may be imposed and the prison term goes up to five years.
To report fly-tipping, contact East Herts Council on (01279)
655261 and ask for Environmental Services or use the online form
at www.eastherts.gov.uk

If you witness fly-tipping actually taking place, call the police
on 999 and give as much detail as possible about the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charleston Airport Wants to Recoup Fibro Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren L. Wise, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that
officials in Charleston, South Carolina, airport want to recoup
financial losses from removing asbestos discovered during
renovation and expansion, but they might face an uphill struggle.

They learned earlier it will cost $670,000 to remove the cancer-
causing substance embedded in a tar-like waterproofing material at
Charleston International.

The substance was found in January behind brick walls being
dismantled as part of the $200 million redevelopment of the 29-
year-old terminal building. The asbestos removal will also delay
airport construction by about a month to September 2015.

"We are going to look closely to see if we can recover this
funding from the contractor who installed it or the manufacturer
who made it," airport attorney Arnold Goodstein said. "When the
airport was built, it was widely known that asbestos was toxic."

He believes the Charleston County Aviation Authority, which owns
and oversees the state's busiest airport, has a "good chance" of
recovery by looking at the "chain of handlers."

Airports Director Paul Campbell doesn't know who the contractor
was and said the staff will have to sort through old records to
determine the installer.

"There may be some remedy," he said. "If at all possible, we
intend to pursue it."

It is believed the work was done around 1982, meaning more than
three decades have passed since the material was placed on the
building.

If the contractor or the manufacturer are no longer in business,
the airport could turn to the retailer who sold it, but even then,
airport officials could have to dig deeper to make a legal case,
said Anne Kearse, an attorney with Mount Pleasant-based Motley
Rice law firm, which handles asbestos cases.

Not all asbestos was banned by federal regulations in the 1970s,
she said.

"What was banned was pipe insulation, fireproofing materials and
things sprayed on ceilings -- things that could become airborne,"
Kearse said. "There are some products that still have asbestos
that are properly labeled. They have to be below a certain level."

The adhesive used at the airport might have been legal, and it
could have been labeled as containing asbestos, she said. The work
specifications might have called for that product as well.

Among other qualifications for the airport to collect damages,
officials would have to show that the product was dangerous or
defective and there was a substitute that could have been used,
Kearse said.

Campbell believes other materials were available at the time and
one of those should have been used.

"There is no way in 1982 asbestos should have been used on this
project," he said.

Even though some asbestos still might be legal, Kearse said the
firm's stance on the substance is one of zero-tolerance.

"The position we have taken is that there is no safe level because
it's a cancer-causing fiber," Kearse said. "There is no safe level
for carcinogens."

Campbell said the asbestos discovered at the airport never posed a
danger to passengers or workers there because it was not airborne.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Begins Demolition Before Fibro Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Woodard, writing for KOIN6.com, reported that the Department
of Environmental Quality in Portland, Oregon, will take action
against a building contractor for not checking for asbestos in a
home they were demolishing in Southeast Portland.

Robert McCullough, the president of a Southeast Portland
neighborhood association and a frequent critic of city building
and demolition policies, said he got a call "from an angry
neighbor."  He believed there was asbestos in the home right
across the street from Duniway Elementary. It seemed there were no
precautions taken before demolition began, so he called the Oregon
DEQ.

"Sitting across the street are hundreds of small children," he
told KOIN 6 News. "When the men in hazmat suits came to finish the
demolition they were dressed better for this than the children."

There was asbestos inside, and the home is now wrapped in plastic.

The contractor told KOIN 6 News they made a mistake by not
checking for asbestor before beginning the demolition.  But he
said he doesn't believe anything harmful was released into the air
because a qualified crew eventually came in to get rid of it.

McCullough said the city needs new policies requiring contractors
to notify neighbors of demolition.

A spokesperson for the school district also told KOIN 6 News
they've asked the city to monitor the work being done at the home.
They also said they're less worried about kids being affected
because the home is near the playground but not near any classroom
windows.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "300 Week" Standard Not Applicable in Meso Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Pennsylvania appeals court has reversed a summary judgment
order for an electricity company on the grounds that the Workers'
Compensation Act's "300 week" requirement does not apply to
mesothelioma cases.

Judge John Musmanno delivered the opinion in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania. Judges Jacqueline Shogan and Cheryl Allen concurred.

Plaintiffs Howard A. Scott, on behalf of the estate of Albert L.
Scott, and Laverne Scott appealed an order granting summary
judgment to defendant Duquesne Light Company entered on Nov. 17,
2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County.

According to the May 12 opinion, Albert Scott was an employee of
Duquesne Light from 1941 to 1943 and again from 1945 to 1985 in
various locations around Pittsburgh.  Scott was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Sept. 17, 2007, and died on March 26, 2008.

Prior to his death, the decedent filed an asbestos lawsuit against
Duquesne Light, alleging asbestos exposure during his employment
with the defendant.

However, Duquesne Light filed preliminary objections arguing the
claims should be dismissed due to the exclusivity provision of the
Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, which implies that an
employer's liability is "exclusive and in place of all other
liability" to employees on account of injury or death.

Duquesne Light claims the decedent was last employed by the
company more than 300 weeks before developing mesothelioma,
prohibiting him from his claims.

Based on Duquesne Light's arguments, the trial court granted its
motion for summary judgment.

In response, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment. The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the petition for appeal and
remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings
based upon the Tooey decision.

In Tooey, plaintiffs John Tooey, who worked for Ferro Engineering
from 1964 to 1982, and Spurgeon Landis, who worked for Alloy Rods,
Inc. from 1946 to 1992, both alleged they developed mesothelioma
from asbestos exposure at work.  They filed lawsuits against
several defendants, including their respective employers, which in
turn filed motions for summary judgment.

The defendants in Tooey argued that the plaintiffs' causes of
action were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers'
Compensation Act.

However, the plaintiffs responded that their claims were permitted
because their injuries fell outside the jurisdiction, scope and
coverage of the Workers' Compensation Act, the opinion states.

In Tooey, the trial court denied the motions for summary judgment,
then the appeals court reversed the decision on appeal. The
plaintiffs then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Musmanno explained that the Supreme Court reviewed the Workers'
Compensation Act, "under the assumption that the language was
ambiguous, and determined that the employers' interpretation would
leave workers without any remedy for essentially all late-
manifesting occupational diseases."

The Supreme Court explained that the average latency period for
mesothelioma is 30 to 50 years, meaning employees would not show
symptoms of the injury until well past the 300 week mark.

Therefore, the court in Tooey found that the "300 week time window
operates as a de facto exclusion of coverage under the Act for
essentially all mesothelioma claims."

Musmanno added that the Supreme Court concluded that "where the
plaintiffs' injuries from the occupational disease do not manifest
within 300 weeks of the last employment-based exposure, the
[Workers' Compensation Act] is inapplicable and an employee may
file a common law tort claim against his/her employers."

Regarding the case on hand, the Scotts questioned whether the
lower court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of
Duquesne Light. They argued Duquesne Light's claims were barred by
the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, when
it was uncontested that the Scotts have no recovery against
Duquesne under the Act.

Similar to the Tooey case, the Scotts claimed that because
decedent's disease resulting in death occurred more than 300 weeks
after his last occupational asbestos exposure, his injury did not
trigger the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision,
Musmanno stated.

The court remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Giving Access to Garlock Filings Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that just one day after granting Ford Motor Company's request for
access to Rule 2019 filings in the Garlock Sealing Technologies
bankruptcy proceeding, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges stayed
the order.

Hodges' stay will be imposed while an appeal by the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants is pending.

Hodges originally granted access to Rule 2019 filings on May 6
after previously denying the same request from several defendant
companies that believe they may have been victimized what Hodges
called in January a pattern of misrepresentation.

Hodges then granted the motion to stay on May 7, which prohibits
the release or access to any Rule 2019 filings pending the outcome
of any appeals regarding the access.

The ex parte motion to stay the order granting access to Rule 2019
proceedings was also filed on May 6 by the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.

In its motion, the committee requested the stay in order to
"preserve the ability of affected persons" to appeal.

The committee cites United States Bankruptcy Rule 8005, saying the
bankruptcy judge may suspend proceedings while an appeal is
pending in order to protect the rights of all interested parties.

The committee adds that the "court is already keenly aware" of the
interests at stake for claimants and "the irreparable nature of
the harm they may suffer should this court's order not be stayed."

Rule 2019 filings contain personal identification and medical
information relating to asbestos bankruptcy trust claimants, and
once that information is released to the defendants, it is
"essentially released to the public," the motion explains.

The group added that during the March 27 hearing with respect to
motions to unseal, Hodges explained that "'once the genie's out of
the bottle, it's out of the bottle and there aint no putting it
back . . . if I granted the motions to unseal that are filed by
Ford [and others], it would essentially moot the appeal.'"

"'Given the history of having initially sealed the information,
the only fair thing to do would be to stay such an order so that
the Committee could appeal,'" Hodges continued. "'Because to not
do so would essentially be to deny them a right to appeal.'"

According to the motion, the movants suggested the same
considerations should apply to Rule 2019 filings.

"Indeed, irreparable injury is frequently held to exist where the
order appealed from would result in the disclosure of documents,"
the committee wrote.

The movants also argued that equities favor the committee rather
than Ford. Ford is seeking access to Rule 2019 fillings in order
to evaluate whether it has suffered any harm in the past, they
assert.

For those reasons, the committee contended it is unlikely Ford
would suffer any "obvious" injury if its access is stayed.
However, the committee would suffer "immediate and irreversible"
harm if the order is not stayed.

According to the motion, public interest could be impacted based
on the appellate court's decision on the appeal, but no public
interest would be affected by granting a stay.

In March, Aetna Health Insurance was granted access to Rule 2019
Filings filed in the Garlock bankruptcy case.

Aetna moved for access in an effort to recover medical expenses
from claimants who have been paid for the same costs through
litigation.

At the time, however, Hodges denied similar requests from the
movants who were later granted Rule 2019 access, including Ford
and Volkswagen, among others.

Hodges ultimately concluded that the Rule 2019 Filings are public
record available for examination.  He added that granting access
was appropriate because no improper purpose with the information
exists.

According to the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019,
lawyers are required to make certain disclosures about clients'
claims against the bankrupt company, including prices paid for the
debt and the date of acquisition.

Ford responded to the stay order by filing its own notice of
appeal on May 7 to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina regarding the order to stay its
previous order granting access to Rule 2019 filings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk DA Eyes Possible Illegal Dumping at Park
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Crichton and Sarah Armaghan, writing for Newsday.com,
reported that asbestos has been found at a second Islip Town, New
York, park, town officials said, and Suffolk County district
attorney investigators are looking into possible illegal dumping
of hazardous waste at a third town park.  Both town facilities are
on the site of the former Central Islip state psychiatric
hospital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salvage Owner Guilty of Fibro-Related Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that owner and operator of A&E
Salvage has pleaded guilty to Clean Air Act violations for
removing asbestos from a closed Hamblen County plant without
exercising the legally required controls.

According to the U.S. Justice Department, Mark Sawyer was the last
of five co-defendants to plead guilty when he entered his plea in
federal court in Greeneville. All five are scheduled to be
sentenced on Nov. 19.

According to court documents, Sawyer and his co-conspirators had
workers remove asbestos from the shuttered Liberty Fibers plant
without proper protective gear. The conspirators also did not
properly dispose of the hazardous material.

Sawyer faces up to five years in prison and a fine that could
exceed $250,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children Could be Exposed to Fibro at School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Rolly, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reported that when
teachers learned that the asbestos-laden tile on the third and
fourth floors of West High would be removed and new tile laid, it
raised an obvious question: Why not wait for summer vacation when
the kids are gone?

After all, couldn't disturbing the asbestos fibers and possibly
sending them into the environment be potentially hazardous to
students' health?

Several parents had no idea this was the plan. The tile would be
removed during the evening when school was out, but the students
would be back the next morning. The project would take a week.

Teacher complaints about the project seemed not to be heeded.
After the Salt Lake City School District was called, wondering
what was the rush, and School Board member Michael Clara emailed
Superintendent McKell Withers with the same question, officials
decided to delay the removal until summer.

It had been determined that the project was not dangerous, but
perhaps officials decided caution was the better approach.

Bob Ford, of the Utah Division of Air Quality, said there are
projects to remove asbestos from schools and other buildings
throughout the summer. He said West's removal had been scheduled
for this week because it was a relatively small job that the
contractors wanted to get out of the way before tackling larger
projects this summer.

Asbestos remains in many schools and buildings throughout the Salt
Lake Valley. At West, teachers say, a half dozen or more teachers
on the fourth floor have gotten cancer in the past several years.
Two have died.

The Salt Lake City School District commissioned an environmental
inspection in 2009 because of the flurry of cancer cases among
teachers. The study concluded there was no environmental issue at
West that could be linked to cancer.

And the bat problem is gone. West lies in the migratory path of a
certain species of bats that took up residence in the school's
ceiling.

Principal Parley Jacobs said a thorough sealing on the building's
exterior has kept out the bats the past couple of years. Now they
hang out in the lighting structures at the football field.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found on LE Aoife Should Have Been Removed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal.ie reported that the Irish Government aware of
asbestos found on a naval ship more than a decade ago -- and made
arrangements for it to be removed at the time.  It is the third
Defence Forces ship to be affected by asbestos in recent weeks.

The LE Aoife was taken out of action after a gasket, believed to
contain asbestos, blew, leading to the ship being brought ashore
in order for the device to be examined.  It is understood that
staff involved are unlikely to have been exposed to the material.

Concerns that asbestos could still be on this ship were sparked
when when several gaskets and lagging material were flagged by
staff as a cause of concern during maintenance on the vessel.

A Defence Force spokesperson confirmed that these later tested
positive for asbestos.

However, the issue was raised in the Dail over a decade ago, when
in late 1999 the then Minister for Defence Michael Smith said that
asbestos was detected in "engine exhausts and manifold lagging" on
the LE Aoife, as well as the LE Emer, LE Aisling, LE Orla, and the
now decommissioned LE Deirdre.

The ships were subsequently awarded a clean air certificate.

Minister Phil Hogan addressed the issue last month during Topical
Issues, after asbestos was found on both the LE Ciara and LE Orla.
In the case of LE Orla, work was permitted to carried out on the
ship as the 2000 survey stated that "there was no asbestos on
board the vessels", Hogan said.

Naval personnel thought to have been exposed to asbestos last
month after carrying out maintenance work on the LE Ciara are now
seeking legal advice, in an incident described as a "failure of
health and safety".

"Naval Personnel remain our primary concern and all Health and
Safety Authority guidelines were followed as those issues were
addressed," a spokesperson for the Defence Force said.

"It is expected that these vessels will return to service when the
remedial works are complete, this is estimated to take a number of
weeks."

TheJournal.ie revealed that over 300 Defence Forces troops were
potentially exposed to asbestos while serving with a UN
peacekeeping force in East Timor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Row Erupts Over GBP4.5-Mil. Flat Demolition
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Foulds, writing for Daily Record and Sunday Mail, reported
that row has broken out after it was revealed that the demolition
of four blocks of flats in Dumbarton, England, will cost an EXTRA
GBP1.3m as they are riddled with asbestos.

West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) says it is being forced to fork
out the extra cash after "unexpectedly high levels" of the
potentially deadly material were found in the four high-rise
blocks in Bellsmyre. But critics described the revelation as
"absolutely astonishing", blasting the authority for failing to
discover the asbestos until now.

Stuart McMillan MSP said: "While dealing with asbestos and
ensuring public safety is of the utmost priority, serious
questions must now be asked as to why such huge costs are now
being realised.

"These flats have been in council ownership since they were built
and prior to their becoming unoccupied the council were
responsible for maintaining the flats. How, therefore, is it that
the council have got its demolition sums so wrong?"

The blocks could make way for a new Our Lady and St Patrick's High
School (OLSP).

Mr McMillan added it comes as a hammer blow to the authority,
which admitted blowing GBP1.5m on finding a school site -- before
a location had even been confirmed.

The new approach, approved by the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE), will see platforms erected around the structures to allow
contractors to remove the concrete surrounding the asbestos.

Enclosed scaffolding will then be put up to facilitate the safe
removal of the asbestos.

HSE originally proposed demolition by explosion in January but the
council, contractor and Clydebank Asbestos Group disagreed,
stating it could cause airborne contamination.

Councillor David McBride, housing convener, said: "We need to
demolish these unwanted tower blocks using the safest possible
methods for the local community and our contractors.

"Our surveys revealed that the levels of asbestos were far beyond
the normal content expected in buildings of this age and type and
so we've had to revise our approach accordingly." Jackie Baillie
MSP added: "The safety of residents in the surrounding area must
be the priority so I am glad that the contractors have finally
come up with a solution to deal with the unexpected level of
asbestos."

The council stressed the GBP4.5m demolition will be completed in
time to allow construction of OLSP, if it is approved, to begin as
planned in March 2015.

Lennox Herald columnist Bill Heaney slammed the council.

He said: "Another day, another GBP1m down the drain. The disasters
pile up for WDC. It should accept that this discovery, kept under
wraps until 'this is a good time to bury bad news' Friday
afternoon moment, should be postponed and a new public
consultation should take place pointing out in the consultation
document that the preferred site is polluted with deadly asbestos.

"Heads should roll for this -- councillors and highly paid
officials should be held to account."

A Dumbarton resident, who didn't want to be named, added: "Flats
of this age are well known to contain asbestos. It is also basic
health and safety that any workers carrying out any work on
asbestos containing buildings are to be protected from exposure to
asbestos.

"How, therefore, can it be that the council did not know that
these flats contained asbestos? Moreover, in being aware of the
asbestos, why is it thousands of tonnes of building debris
stripped from within the towers is stockpiled in huge mounds with
no form of covering whatsoever?"

A council spokeswoman said that the rubble does not contain
asbestos and has been transported from other sites to build a
platform for machinery.

She added that the areas where asbestos is being removed are
within airtight enclosures and that the asbestos, which is
harmless unless disturbed, is located within concrete walls

Dumbarton councillor George Black disagreed with the method of
demolition, believing the blocks should be blown up with
explosives -- at a cost of GBP8.4m.

Mr Black said "hand demolition" increased health risks to workers
and residents as the asbestos will be disturbed daily over a long
period of time.  He commented on West Dunbartonshire Opposition
Councillors Facebook page, stating: "Labour have opted for savings
over health and safety. We should be going with HSE's original
proposal."

Councillor McBride replied, accusing him of making a "scurrilous
attack", saying that the safe method was agreed in consultation
with industry experts and endorsed by HSE, adding: "In my non-
informed opinion I can't understand how exploding higher than
expected asbestos level flats into the Bellsmyre area can be
safer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Receives No Compensation in Legal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
North Wales Daily Post reported that a widow who claimed her
husband's death was caused by asbestos exposure whilst working in
a Staffordshire cemetery in the 1970s has won a top judge's
sympathy, but not a penny in compensation.

Una Abbott, 74, said her bricklayer husband of 40 years, Dennis,
had -- four months before he died from cancer in 2011 -- recounted
details of how he had inhaled asbestos dust at a Cannock cemetery.

Lawyers for the widow, of Penmaenmawr, claimed Cannock Chase
Council failed in its duty of care by not protecting him properly,
but the local authority denied he was ever in contact with
asbestos while in its employment.

Judge Peter Ralls QC dismissed Mrs Abbott's claim for about
GBP130,000 damages at London's High Court, saying he had "great
sympathy" for her but her case had not been proved.

Judge Ralls said Mr Abbott worked for the council between 1973 and
1979, after joining from Staffordshire County Council, and lived
in the Cannock area before retiring from his lifelong career as a
brickie in 1979.

In April, 2010, he complained of chest pains and his condition
worsened when he and his ballroom-dancing instructor wife went on
a holiday cruise soon after, the judge added.

He was told that he might have mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer
of the lining of the lungs almost always associated with asbestos
--  in December, 2010 and deteriorated quickly, tragically dying
at the age of 80 in January, 2011.

Mrs Abbott said that, four months before his passing, her husband
asked her to write down his memories of working with "asspesters"
at Pye Green Cemetery in the late 1970s, which he blamed for his
terminal illness.

He had told her that labourers had refused to lay a ceiling
coating in an outbuilding beside the Sexton's house in the
graveyard, so he was then given the job and denied protective
gear.

Mrs Abbott, who first met her soulmate when she was 15, earlier
told the court: "When he asked for a mask he was told to 'get on
with the job'."

Judge Ralls said the building Mr Abbott probably meant was a mess
room used by gravediggers, but that subsequent surveys in 2005,
2010 and 2013 revealed no asbestos there.  He found that Mr Abbott
had accurately recounted what he believed to be a brush with
asbestos and described his wife as a "witness of truth".

But he ruled: "At the end of the day, I am driven to the
conclusion that, whatever Mr Abbott must have believed on looking
back at events, I am not satisfied  there was any form of plaster
or decorative coating that contained asbestos.

"Whilst I have great sympathy with the deceased, and for Mrs
Abbott, I am compelled to conclude that the burden of proof has
not been discharged and the claim must be dismissed."

The judge granted permisson for Mrs Abbott to challenge his
decision before the Court of Appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jamaica Plain Contractor Fined for Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Banker & Tradesman reported that the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has fined Jamaica Plain-based
contractor Envirogreen LLC $8,312.50 for violations of state
asbestos regulations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Lincoln Center to Start
---------------------------------------------------------
KVIA.com reported that TxDOT will begin the initial phase of the
demolition of the Lincoln Center, according to spokesman David
Glessner.

The first phase will involve the removal of asbestos and mold from
the building and is expected to take a few weeks to complete.

"We intend then to move forward with our plan to tear down the
structure," Glessner said in an email to ABC-7. "During the
initial phase, we will keep open the dialogue with Rep. (Joe)
Pickett, Senator (Jose) Rodriguez and other elected officials
regarding the disposition of the Lincoln Center and any options
that may be offered."

The demolition company told ABC-7 that the demolition will occur
in two weeks.

Glessner cited safety as the reason for the demolition of the
Lincoln Center.

"There have been many unfortunate instances where vehicles have
crashed and driven off of overpasses falling onto the ground
below," Glessner said. "Our goal is to prevent such an occurrence
in El Paso."

View some examples of vehicles falling off overpasses onto the
ground below at http://www.kvia.com/news/26023730

Activists planned to protest the center's demolition.

At a City Council meeting in October, the agency said it would
give the city and supporters of the Lincoln Center one year to
come up with a plan to finance and renovate the property.

But now TxDOT says the center has to be demolished.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Toxic Dust at Wokingham Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Local Berkshire reported that a company was fined GBP10,000 after
'needlessly' putting the lives of workers at risk through failing
to inform them of a threat of asbestos.

Redwood Contractors Ltd was ordered to pay the fine -- and costs
of GBP2,857 -- after it did not disclose the presence of asbestos
insulating board (AIB) at a building undergoing refurbishment, in
Molly Millars Close, Wokingham.

Despite undertaking an asbestos survey just two months prior to
work starting, the information about the deadly material was not
passed on to the site foreman.

Mistaking the AIB for asbestos cement -- which poses a much lower
risk -- workers ripped it out without adequate safety procedures.
This put the workers at severe risk, as the substance can be
'terminal' if inhaled, according to the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE).

Only a licensed asbestos contractor can remove such deadly
material using specialist equipment, due to the health hazard the
dangerous fibres pose.

The lack of information supplied -- even though Redwood
Contractors Ltd had the survey in its possession -- was
investigated by the HSE.

Redwood, based in Battersea, London, pleaded guilty at Reading
Magistrates' Court to two separate breaches of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006, relating to the incident in December
2011.

It was fined by the court.

After the case, Karen Morris, an inspector at HSE, said: "It is
disappointing that the foreman and others were needlessly put at
risk simply because the asbestos survey for the warehouse wasn't
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 wellbeing 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."

Redwood Contractors Ltd declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alex Neil Blamed Over Hospital Wards' Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Whitaker, writing for The Scotsman, reported that two
hospital wards that were controversially kept open by health
secretary Alex Neil contained asbestos, Scotland reveals.

Pressure mounted on the health secretary last night with the
revelation that the potentially harmful substance was found in the
two wards where mental health patients are treated.

Neil faced calls for his resignation when it emerged that one of
his first acts on appointment as health secretary was to use his
ministerial powers to save the wards at Monklands Hospital in his
Airdrie and Shotts constituency.

Neil came under fire for reversing the decision of his
predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, to remove the acute mental health
beds from the hospital when he was appointed to the post by First
Minister Alex Salmond in September 2012.

NHS Lanarkshire said that asbestos had been present on the
hospital's wards 24 and 25, but there was no risk to patients.
Neil intervened to keep the wards open, before handing
responsibility for the matter to his deputy, Michael Matheson,
citing concerns over a "conflict of interests".

Salmond dismissed Labour's claims that the health secretary had
inappropriately intervened and resisted calls to sack him.

The health board confirmed that asbestos is still present on ward
25, some 20 months after Neil acted to keep it open. Asbestos has
now been cleared from the neighbouring ward 24, but remained on
site until the end of last month, the board stated.

Labour's health spokesman, Neil Findlay, said: "Alex Neil must
explain whether he knew about the asbestos in these wards when he
ordered NHS bosses to keep them open.

"The more we find out about Alex Neil's meddling, the worse it
gets. Throughout this sorry affair, he has put his own political
interests before patients.

"In order that we can have any confidence in his running of the
NHS, he must explain his actions."

Neil admitted that he knew asbestos was present at Monklands, but
the health secretary said he did not know which wards had been
affected.

"I was arguing as an MSP for the need for a mental health
facility, not to protect a particular location. That is the job of
NHS Lanarkshire. The location of the service is the responsibility
of NHS Lanarkshire.

"I knew there was a general problem with it at Monklands, but I
couldn't tell you what particular wards were affected. I would
expect NHS Lanarkshire to ensure patients are in a safe place.

"We have known for years there is a problem with asbestos and
that's why the government has supplied funds to the NHS for this."

An NHS Lanarkshire spokesman said: "Ward 24 is clear of asbestos,
some remains in Ward 25.

"NHS Lanarkshire takes the decision to remove asbestos based on
its condition and if it presents a risk, in line with Health and
Safety Executive advice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSPs Clash on Fibro Parliament Debate "Snub"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greenock Telegraph reported that two local MSPs in England have
clashed over a bid to force insurance companies to pay
compensation to the NHS for treating asbestos victims.

The SNP's Stuart McMillan said it was 'a disgrace' that only two
Labour MSPs turned up for the debate in the Scottish Parliament.
But Greenock & Inverclyde Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, who was not
there, said he was 'angry and dismayed' that Mr McMillan had
broken long-standing cross-party unity over asbestos matters.

The Holyrood debate which sparked the controversy had centred on
an SNP motion welcoming proposals by Clydeside Action on Asbestos
on the recovery of costs to the NHS of treating people with
asbestos-related conditions and diseases.

Mr McMillan, who is taking forward a Bill on the matter, said:
"This Bill is intended to help NHS Scotland recover the costs of
treating people with asbestos-related conditions from insurance
companies who have already settled civil claims with victims.

"It is estimated the NHS spends GBP20 million a year on diagnosing
and treating people suffering as a result of asbestos exposure --
money which will be freed up to treat more people if this Bill is
successful.

"I am extremely disappointed in the Labour party's reaction to
both this debate and my Bill. It seems they would prefer to side
with the insurance industry and employers who negligently exposed
their workforce to asbestos."

When asked about the debate no-show, Mr McNeil responded by saying
that few MSPs were at the debate because it came at the end of a
parliamentary day in which business had gone on longer than
expected and many had to go to various appointments.

Mr McNeil said: "If the SNP were serious about this they could
bring this Bill forward right now, and I hope that they do.

"My experience and commitment towards fighting for asbestos
victims cannot be questioned. I have family and friends who have
suffered through exposure to asbestos, and I am outraged and
offended that Mr McMillan is trying to seek political advantage on
an issue where there is no division between the parties.

"We have achieved successes for asbestos sufferers through the
parties working together, and it's shameful to try to score
political points like this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Decides Not to Identify Fibro-Filled Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dyett, writing for ABC News, reported that the ACT
Government has again refused to release a list of Canberra homes
containing dangerous loose-fill asbestos, citing concerns the
information could damage relations with the Commonwealth.

Earlier this year the Chief Minister's Directorate received a
Freedom of Information (FoI) request to identify the homes in
question.

A list of homes had been prepared for an asbestos-removal program,
which was first overseen by the Commonwealth and then the ACT
government between 1988 and 1993.

The scheme aimed to remove loose-fill asbestos which had been
installed in hundreds of homes by a company called Mr Fluffy.

However, it has since come to light the material may still be
present and the ACT Government has written to 1,000 households to
warn them.

The Directorate has previously refused to publicly release the
list of affected properties, and on appeal it has stood by that
decision.

In its reasons it argues doing so could damage the ACT's relations
with the Commonwealth and that negotiations relating to the
program and remediation costs should happen in confidence.

An online letter of the decision also says the list has errors and
its release could also damage the value of individual homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meeting Held on Hospital's Future
--------------------------------------------------
Derby Telegraph reported that a meeting will be held to discuss
the future of Heanor Memorial Hospital, in England, after asbestos
was discovered in parts of the building.

The hospital has been closed to patients since last year after the
potentially deadly material was discovered in a boiler room during
a routine inspection by staff in September.  It means clinics and
services have been moved temporarily to Ilkeston Community
Hospital.

Since then, bosses at the NHS Southern Derbyshire Clinical
Commissioning Group said they have been trying to find the "best
way forward" for the hospital.

At a meeting earlier this year, options discussed for its future
included replacing it with a new GBP1.6 million building or
refurbishing the current 89-year-old premises at a cost of
GBP850,000.

Members of the public are invited to hear the latest on progress
at the site at a meeting at St Lawrence's Church, in Church
Street, Heanor.

Andy Layzell, chief officer for the clinical commissioning group,
said: "Patients and the public can continue to be assured that we
remain committed to enhancing and developing health services in
Heanor -- and four pledges I outlined in January's meeting still
stand true.

"Finding asbestos at the hospital, combined with the age of the
building, means health services cannot be provided in the hospital
building as it stands and we know from speaking with local groups
and individuals that people now understand that to be the case.

"We look forward to welcoming everyone to the meeting, where we
will provide an update on everything we have been doing since our
last meeting in January."

Mr Layzell said that since January's meeting, blood testing and
services had returned to Heanor and the group was also looking to
bring outpatient clinics back to town.

He said: "I would like to stress that no decisions have been made
at this stage."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Doncaster Men Jailed in Illegal Waste Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
InvestinUK.net reported that to offences relate to illegal waste
activities that occurred between 2008 and 2010 at Middleton
Quarry, Pollington and then at Wroot Road, Doncaster, in England.

Phillip Slingsby, aged 42, was sentenced to a term of 12 months
imprisonment, ordered to pay a contribution towards prosecution
costs of GBP20,000 and disqualified as a director for 6 years. He
was also subject to a confiscation order in the amount of
GBP200,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 made at an earlier
court hearing. No separate penalties were imposed on Mr Slingsby's
associated companies Slingsby Plant Hire Limited and Slingsby
Quarries Limited in view of their financial status and the fact
that one of the companies has been dissolved whilst the other
company is in liquidation.

Robert Spencer, aged 63, was sentenced to a term of 9 months
imprisonment, suspended for 2 years and ordered to pay GBP20,000
in confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Charges were brought by the Environment Agency under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Permitting
(England & Wales) Regulations 2007 and 2010. Throughout the course
of this complex case the Environment Agency worked closely with
the Insolvency Service and its own in-house Accredited Financial
Investigators to secure orders under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

Operations at Middleton Quarry, Pollington

Prosecuting for the Environment Agency, Counsel Mr Christopher
Stables told the Court that between December 2008 and April 2009,
officers from the Environment Agency visited the Middleton Quarry,
Pollington and observed tipping taking place on a large scale. The
quarry did not benefit from an environmental permit that would
authorise such an activity to take place. In fact, a permit would
never have been granted given the proximity of the site to 3
Yorkshire boreholes used for the abstraction of drinking water.

Following initial discussions with Mr Slingsby about concerns over
the activities taking place, a surveillance operation took place.
Officers observed waste being tipped and levelled on an industrial
scale. The waste comprised of wood, vegetation, plastics, asbestos
sheeting and other non-inert waste. Sample testing results
revealed the presence of chrysotile asbestos and asbestos fibres.
The nature of the waste tipped posed a significant pollution risk
to the nearby water sources.

In total 127,000.00 tonnes of waste were deposited at Middleton
Quarry. Lawful disposal would have cost in excess of GBP440,000.
Operations at Wroot Road, Doncaster

Mr Slingsby then moved operations to 36 Acre Field, Wroot Road,
Doncaster, a site owned by Mr Robert Spencer. Between January 2009
and October 2009 Robert Spencer allowed Phillip Slingsby to tip
thousands of tonnes of waste on his land when there was no
environmental permit in force. It is unlikely that a permit would
ever have been granted due to the proximity of the site to water
sources, the potential risks posed to ground water and the lack of
planning permission.

In September 2009, officers from the Environment Agency attended
Wroot Road and observed tipping taking place. It was clear to
officers that this was a large scale operation. Officers told Mr
Spencer that tipping on land was illegal and that it should cease
immediately. Further warnings were given and followed up in
writing. Mr Spencer claimed that Phillip Slingsby was responsible
for the deposit of the waste.

Further visits to the site revealed evidence that a large hole had
been excavated and then backfilled with waste. The waste included
brick, rubble, soil, plastics and green waste, metal, wood and
tyres.

In October 2010 officers from the Environment Agency conducted a
raid of the Wroot Road site. A series of 'trial pits' were dug at
the site from which samples confirmed the presence of asbestos on
site. Waste transfer notes and invoices seized suggested that the
defendants made considerable financial gains from operating the
site without the benefit of an environmental permit and handling
the waste incorrectly.

In total around 72,000 tonnes of waste was deposited at Wroot
Road.

Comments made in passing sentence

His Honour Judge Jack stated that the defendants had both acted in
a way that had "put the public at serious risk." The offences were
further aggravated by the fact that they were deliberate,
committed in environmentally sensitive areas and financially
motivated. In passing sentence, he accepted that Robert Spencer
was less culpable than Phillip Slingsby. In both cases, the
custody threshold was passed and, whilst the sentence imposed on
Robert Spencer could be suspended, such was the seriousness of the
case, it was appropriate for Phillip Slingsby to serve an
immediate term of imprisonment.

Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency officer in charge
of the investigation said:

"This was a large scale waste operation where the defendants
allowed waste to be brought onto land without being permitted to
do so. Illegal waste sites have the potential to cause serious
pollution incidents or harm human health, and this prosecution
demonstrates that we take waste crime very seriously and will not
hesitate to prosecute if necessary, to protect the environment and
local communities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Agency Not "Window Dressing"
---------------------------------------------------
Jessica Chambers, writing for Latrobe Valley Express, reported
that Gippsland Asbestos-Related Disease Support group in Australia
has defended the agency tasked with eradicating asbestos after it
was criticised by Federal Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

In a recently released ministerial paper, Mr Cormann accused the
former Labor government of "window dressing", when it established
the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency in 2013, .

Mr Cormann claimed there was no change in the scope of the
asbestos-related activity of government, other than the addition
of extra resource and administrative costs.

GARDS chief executive Vicki Hamilton said she could not understand
why Mr Cormann was attacking a newly-formed agency which the
current government had supported.

"I'm asking Mr Cormann, if he's so worried about the agency just
being window dressing, to take the mantle up and give the agency
the teeth it needs to hand down the decisions and actions it needs
to," Ms Hamilton said.

She said the agency was formed so it could work several government
departments and agencies, including WorkSafe and the Environment
Protection Authority, to improve asbestos education and move
towards the future eradication of the deadly substance from
Australian homes and workplaces.

"It was created so people didn't have to deal with four or five
different departments, it would be a one-stop shop to address
these problems in the community," Ms Hamilton said.

However, Ms Hamilton has applauded the Federal Government's
decision to continue to fund the agency as detailed in the budget,
despite Mr Cormann's criticisms.

"The federal budget also cemented ongoing bipartisan support for
the agency, which was set up last year, while rejecting the deeply
concerning recommendation of the National Commission of Audit that
the agency, and its advisory council, be abolished as a budget
saving measure," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Blames Fibro for Speldhurst Man's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent and Sussex Courier reported that a man who died suddenly at
home aged 77 had been exposed to asbestos throughout his career,
an inquest heard.

Retired contractor Alan Passmore of Roopers in Speldhurst,
England, died on March 30 but he had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma in December 2010.

During his employment he had "climbed over, under and around"
machinery and had come into contact with asbestos-lagged pipes in
"various states of degradation" said coroner Roger Hatch.

He added: "As he brushed against them he would have disturbed the
asbestos lagging and even the pipes would have had dust on them.

"The asbestos would become airborne and he would have breathed it
in and was not provided with any protective clothing or face mask
or given training or advice."

Mr Passmore later worked in Erith looking at redundant pipe
lagging machinery where there would have been many asbestos
fibres, he said.

Mr Hatch recorded a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Former Shipyard Worker Files Fibro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that the
widow of a former shipyard employee who died of mesothelioma is
suing numerous companies she claims are at fault for his exposure
to asbestos.

Janet Wusthoff, on behalf of Charles W. Wusthoff, filed suit
against Huntington Ingalls Inc., Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
Inc., Avondale Industries Inc., Reilly Benton Co Inc., Taylor-
Seidenbach Inc., Mccarty Corporation, Eagle Inc., Eagle Asbestos
And Packing Co Inc., Onebeacon America Insurance Company,
Onebeacon Insurance Company and Commercial Union Insurance Company
in the 24th Judicial District Court on April 17.

Janet Wusthoff alleges that after her husband Charles died on July
24, 2013 it was found that the direct cause of his death was due
to asbestos exposure. The plaintiff asserts that her husband was
employed as a boiler-room painter by the shipyard at Avondale
Industries Inc. located at 5100 River Road in Avondale in the
early 1970s where he was allegedly exposed to asbestos and
asbestos containing products in poorly ventilated quarters without
being provided respiratory or other safety equipment.

Wusthoff claims the exposure during her husband's employment
resulted in his contraction of lung cancer and eventual death.

The defendant is accused of wrongful death, general negligence and
strict liability.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, loss of
quality of life, disfigurement, financial loss, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of love, loss of affection and loss of
society.

Wusthoff is represented by Mickey P. Landry of New Orleans-based
Landry & Swarr LLC.

The case has been assigned to Division C Judge June Berry
Darensburg.

Case no. 737-583.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Making Roadwork on Pa. Street More Tedious
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Jorgensen, writing for WGAL.com, reported that a busy
section of New Holland Ave. in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was closed
for a week as crews work to repave the road. The work is also more
tedious because small amounts of asbestos must be removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Compensation for Widow for Husband's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Kirby, writing for Manchester Evening News, reported that the
widow of a man who died from asbestos-related cancer may miss out
on up to GBP100,000 from a government compensation scheme . . .
because he was diagnosed too soon.

Sid Pointon, 73, was diagnosed with cancer just 15 DAYS before the
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme was launched to help families
who have lost loved ones because of the killer dust.

The scheme was launched for families of workers who fell victim
while working at defunct companies and whose employers' insurance
companies cannot be traced.

Mr Pointon worked in a 'snow storm' of toxic dust at Morgan &
Crossley, a Manchester firm which manufactured asbestos brake
linings, aged just 21 in the early 1960s.  But his widow Irene,
69, and her solicitor have been unable to find the firm's insurers
to launch a legal claim.  She has now been left devastated that
she will not be entitled to government compensation.

Irene, from Chorlton, said: "To watch my husband die from this
terrible disease was heart-breaking for me, my son and daughter,
and for our three grandchildren.

"It was wrong that Sid was exposed to asbestos by his employer
when the dangers of asbestos were widely known. He was given no
warnings about asbestos dust nor was he provided with a mask for
protection. I was so upset when his employer's insurers couldn't
be traced but thought that the Mesothelioma Scheme would help. Now
it seems that I will get nothing. I want to point out how unfair
this is, not just for me but for hundreds of others. I am
determined to fight for justice. It was what Sid would have wanted
me to do."

Mr Pointon was diagnosed with cancer on July 16, 2012, just 15
days before the government scheme came into operation. He died in
February last year.

Irene is now seeking the support of solicitors at Manchester law
firm, Pannone, which is part of Slater & Gordon.

Irene's solicitor Alicia Rendell, an industrial disease
specialist, said the government scheme is 'inflexible' and should
be altered to help people like Mrs Pointon.  She is also urging
anyone who worked at Morgan & Crossley and who may know the name
of the company's insurer to contact her.

She said: "This new scheme is tailor-made for cases like this but
because Mr Pointon attended hospital and was diagnosed with this
incurable cancer before the scheme was announced, Mrs Pointon
cannot claim for payment.

"We think this situation is unjust and inflexible and we would
like some common sense to be applied to help our client and indeed
others faced with similar situations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Want to Limit Garlock Docs Access
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Ford Motor Co. and others that won access to
documents relating to asbestos claims against Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC should not be allowed to give other parties
access to that information, asbestos claimants told a North
Carolina bankruptcy judge.

In a motion to reconsider, the official committee of asbestos
personal injury claimants asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George R.
Hodges to amend a motion he granted that allowed asbestos
defendants to access so-called Rule 2019 filings in the Garlock
bankruptcy case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock FCR Supports Deadline for Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the Future Claims Representative in the Garlock Sealing
Technologies bankruptcy case filed a brief siding with Garlock and
urging the court to set a bar date for current asbestos claims,
which he says would allow Garlock to better estimate the number of
future claims.

Joseph W. Grier III is representing future asbestos claimants in
the Garlock case. In his brief, he supported the debtors' request
for an order that would establish a bar date for filing settled
Garlock's asbestos claims, approve the proof of claim form and
approve the forum and procedures for notice to settled Garlock
asbestos claims.

The debtors to which Grier is referring includes Garlock, Garrison
Litigation Management Group, Ltd., and The Anchor Packing Company.

A bar date in a bankruptcy proceeding is a deadline for asbestos
victims or companies to make their claims against Garlock, which
is intended to prevent surprise claims from arising.

Grier claims a bar date will provide certainty as to the pool of
existing settled claims, both disputed and undisputed, which will
permit reliable provision for such claims under any plan of
reorganization.

Asbestos-related diseases often have latency periods up to 35
years or longer, meaning some personal injury claims against the
debtors may not manifest themselves for decades to come, Grier
explained.

While the parties involved in the bankruptcy case disagree as to
the number of possible future claims, the debtors predict that
roughly 16,800 mesothelioma claims alone will be brought through
2059, which is nearly eight times the number of current claims.

However, Grier added that all future claims are unknown.

Grier included an article written by S. Todd Brown as an exhibit,
which addressed the negative impact that miscalculations of future
claims can have on claimants.

According to Brown's article, asbestos trusts have miscalculated
by either underestimating their long-term liabilities or
overestimating its projected assets.

"This miscalculation begins during the bankruptcy case," Brown
wrote. "Although estimation proceedings are common in asbestos
bankruptcies, they do not provide a basis for ensuring that the
trust is in position to pay current and future claimants
equitably."

"These estimates consistently fall short, thereby allowing current
claimants to obtain high initial recoveries and requiring
substantial reductions in payments to future claimants."

Putting numbers to words, Brown showed just how depleted trusts
have become. To date, nearly 60 asbestos bankruptcy trusts have
been established or are in the process of being established.
Nearly $14 billion has been distributed to trust claimants from
2006 through 2011, leaving $18 billion in assets to satisfy claims
submitted over the next 40 years.

Put simply, the same amount of money spent in about five years
must last the next 40 years.

Grier noted that the parties do agree that there will be, at a
minimum, tens of thousands of such claims across all asbestos-
related disease categories, adding that future claims are "by far
the largest creditor constituency."

Grier argues that after a debtor creates a trust, it loses any
incentive to question the existence or merits of a settlement.
Instead, the task falls to the creditor representatives. If those
representatives, relying on the debtor's data alone, underestimate
the number of settlements, adjustments may need to be made, which
could prejudice the future claimants.

Aware of this potential problem, the FCR previously sought to
better understand the amount of settled claims by working
informally with the debtors for current claimants in order to
avoid the cost and burden of a bar date.

However, the FCR and the debtors were unable to reconcile the
parties' respective different views as to the magnitude of settled
claims or otherwise obtain complete data that would allow him to
do so.

"In fact, the actual amount of settled claims was one of the many
contested items during the estimation trial," the brief states.
"The FCR subsequently advised the court that he believed a bar
date would ultimately be needed, before plan confirmation and the
finalization of requisite trust funds, to determine the number and
amount of settled claims. The FCR is of the same view."

As part of his duties, Grier seeks to ensure that present and
future asbestos claimants are treated fairly under Garlock's trust
procedures.

According to the brief, the FCR wishes for various protections to
be embedded in the trust procedures, including "clearly defined,
meaningful asbestos exposure standards reasonably tailored to the
Debtors' products; appropriate but attainable medical requirements
for proof of a claimant's illness; and robust audits for other
measures to identify invalid claims and ensure accountability."

However, Grier added that despite measures put in place to protect
claimants, the parties involved will still face challenges of
accurately predicting just how many claims, of all types, will be
submitted, which leaves a potential for future claims to be paid
significantly less than present claims.

Grier understands that it is impossible for the debtors to know
exactly how many cases have been settled and assume how many it
could face because they confront thousands of claims and asbestos
cases are occasionally settled in large groups.

"As such, it is foreseeable that plaintiff firms could reasonably
believe they reached an enforceable settlement or settlements but
the Debtor could reasonably disagree," the brief states.

Grier reassures the court that completing the Official Form No. 10
and setting a bar date should not be too burdensome or costly,
because the debtors have contact information for all the plaintiff
firms that could have entered into unpaid pre-petition
settlements. In fact, setting a bar date will allow the counsel to
quickly determine if their clients are subject to an enforceable
settlement agreement and provide supporting documentation.

"Any minimal burden will be outweighed by the benefit to all
parties of knowing exactly how many claims are subject to unpaid
pre-petition settlements," the brief states.

Grier explains that the debtors may facilitate the exercise by
providing listings of known settlements, allowing the parties and
the court to know the number and amount of all settlements,
undisputed and disputed, allowing for accurate provision of
reserves.

The FCR was appointed by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges to
represent the interest of the holders of future asbestos personal
injury claims against the Debtors.

Hodges appointed Grier just after a Jan. 10 bankruptcy ruling in
favor of Garlock, ordering the gasket manufacturer to put $125
million in an asbestos trust -- roughly $1 billion less than what
plaintiffs' representatives felt was proper. In his decision,
Hodges noted how attorneys had been withholding evidence while
pursuing claims against Garlock in order to maximize recovery.

As an exhibit, Grier included an article by Thomas M. Wilson
addressing bankruptcy trust fraud.

Wilson's piece, titled "Institutionalized Fraud in Asbestos
Bankruptcy Trusts," was published in the Mealey's Litigation
Report: Asbestos.

His article focuses on Hodges' actions in the Garlock bankruptcy
proceeding, noting that the judge did not address loopholes that
have been built into asbestos bankruptcy trusts, which can be
viewed as institutionalized fraud.

"Institutionalized fraud consists of certain procedures and
processes which are systematically built into asbestos trusts
through documents such as the trust agreement and the trust
distribution procedures," Wilson wrote.

Wilson explains that fraud begins with the procedures set forth by
the Trust Distribution Procedures, TDP, which makes settlement
payments possible for asbestos claimants even though similar
payments would not otherwise be permissible. Because the system
was designed by those who are now submitting claims, loopholes
have been integrated into the trust system.

"What is wrong with this picture? Simply put, by building into
asbestos bankruptcy trusts legitimate procedures which permit a
claimant to receive compensation for claims which are not
otherwise payable within the tort system, asbestos claimants, and
therefore their attorneys, are able to obtain millions of dollars
in compensation without fear of repercussion," Wilson wrote.

"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."

In order to complement his arguments, Grier also included an
article by Marc C. Scarcella and Peter R. Kelso discussing the
self-serving provisions in the TDP.

Scarcella and Kelso's piece, titled "Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts: A
2012 Overview of Trust Assets, Compensation & Governance," was
published in Mealey's Asbestos Bankruptcy Report.

Scarcella and Kelso's article primarily discusses bankruptcy
trusts in general and their assets, saying that as assets have
grown, so have payments to asbestos claimants.

They explain that trusts have established a payment percentage
that reduces the actual awards by a fixed percentage when trusts
cannot pay claimants the full compensation for a specified claim
amount as prescribed in the TDP.

The TDPs have also been amended recently to include
confidentiality provisions and a sole benefit clause.

"The confidentiality provision mandates that a claimant's
submission to a respective trust and all associated information is
to be treated in the course of settlement negotiations and is
afforded all the applicable confidentiality privileges and
protections. The sole benefit clause states that evidence
submitted to a respective trust to establish proof of claim is for
the sole benefit of the respective trust, not third parties or
defendants in the tort system," Scarcella and Kelso wrote.

They add that trusts have also established "presumptive" medical
and exposure criteria in an effort to quickly determine whether a
claim qualifies for payment. However, the resolution procedures
have only allowed plaintiff attorneys to utilize the same claims
material for multiple trust submissions, thus minimizing their
filing costs per claim.

In his brief, Grier adds that he takes no position as to the
appropriateness of the debtors' treatment of claims based on its
reorganization plan, reserving those arguments for another day.

Grier filed his brief supporting Garlock's request for a bar date
through attorneys Jonathan P. Guy of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP and A. Cotton Wright of Grier, Furr & Crisp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Found in Bags Under House
-----------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
three bags of old Mr Fluffy asbestos have been stored under a home
in Macgregor, Australia -- presumably left behind when the home
was part of the federal government clean-up in the late 1980s.

The bags were left unsealed.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said his agency was
dealing with a potentially serious Mr Fluffy discovery each week
on average since the government urged all 1050 Mr Fluffy
homeowners to get an inspection.

WorkSafe ACT was advised of the discovery -- made during an
inspection carried out by Robson Environmental -- and is
conducting an investigation.

Mr McCabe said the bags "appear to have been there for a very long
time".

But as the bags were in a contained area beneath the house and the
only access was via the garage, he said the amosite fibres
presented no immediate risk to the residents.

WorkSafe had engaged an independent assessor who took samples and
secured other evidence.

Mr McCabe said he was awaiting the test results before the next
steps could be determined but confirmation it was amosite asbestos
would mean the bags would need to be sealed and buried in a
controlled clean-up.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Adds to Registry to Better Protect Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reported that Saskatchewan is putting new
requirements in place for an asbestos registry that Labour
Minister Don Morgan says will help protect workers from exposure.

Occupational Health and Safety rules have been amended to include
additional forms of asbestos to be reported and to update required
information.

A law making asbestos reporting mandatory for Crown corporations,
school districts, health regions and provincial government
buildings was enacted last November.

Building owners have to submit information about the presence of
asbestos to the registry.

Owners who have already provided information will have to review
the changes to the rules and update their submissions if needed.
Compliance and enforcement are to come into effect for all
asbestos-related activities on June 1.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ed Lauter Fibro Lawsuit Casts Wide Net
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the list of
companies accused of exposing actor Ed Lauter to asbestos, the
toxic mineral blamed for causing the pleural mesothelioma that
eventually killed him, could continue to grow, according to
documents obtained by Asbestos.com.

Defendants named in the lawsuit filed April in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court include some well-known broadcasting,
automotive, manufacturing and conglomerate giants:

* CBS Corporation
* CertainTeed Corporation
* Ford Motor Company
* Foster Wheeler AG
* General Electric Company
* Georgia-Pacific LLC
* Honeywell International, Inc.
* Ingersoll-Rand PLC
* John Crane, Inc.
* Soco West, Inc.
* Union Carbide Corporation

In addition to those 11 companies, there are dozens more,
including Blockbuster LLC, MarketWatch.com, Sportsline.com, Inc.
and Viacom, Inc., which are wholly or partially owned subsidiaries
of the primary defendants.

The complaint states the defendants "knew that asbestos was a
dangerous and toxic substance and knew the risks to 'exposed
persons' associated with the use and manipulation of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products, materials, components and
equipment."

Lauter family attorney David Rosen said that although the
complaint already was filed, none of the defendants have
officially been served. Rosen also said more companies could be
added to the list.

"His career in motion pictures put him at risk for exposure,"
Rosen told Asbestos.com. "We're not saying everyone in motion
pictures is at risk, but it is known where asbestos was used in
certain motion picture equipment and on what sets."

Lauter was exposed to asbestos at various movie studios and
location sets where he worked in the Los Angeles area over a 20-
year period, according to the lawsuit. The dates of his exposure
are listed in the complaint as "approximately 1958-1979."

Widow Mia Lauter, along with children Emma Lauter, Ameke Lauter,
Ben Lauter and Anton Lauter, are listed as plaintiffs in the
wrongful death lawsuit.

The complaint states the family is seeking punitive damages
necessary to punish the defendants and prevent them from engaging
in misconduct in the future. They are also asking for compensation
for medical expenses, Lauter's loss of income and income
potential, funeral and burial costs, as well as each family
member's loss of income, financial support and financial
contributions.

The exact dollar amount of damages is not listed in the complaint.

More Than Two Decades of Asbestos Exposure

Lauter was first diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2013 while he
still was working. He died October 13, 2013 at age 74. Asbestos is
the only known cause of mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive
cancer. Typically, there is a latency period of 20-50 years
between first exposure and diagnosis.

Although the disease is more common with military veterans, blue
collar workers and those in the ship building industry, Lauter
isn't the first entertainer diagnosed with the deadly cancer.

Steve McQueen, once America's highest-paid movie star; Merlin
Olsen, actor, broadcaster and football player; and Warren Zevon,
musician and songwriter, all died of mesothelioma.

"It's a little unusual for an actor to pass away from
mesothelioma, but actually it's not that unusual when you consider
that only a small percentage of people who are exposed to asbestos
come down with the disease," Rosen said. "Many are exposed who
don't get sick."

According to the lawsuit, Lauter's exposure to asbestos and
asbestos-containing products "caused severe and permanent injury."

'Those Most Responsible'

California state law requires survivors to file their wrongful
death lawsuits within six months after their loved one passes,
which explains why the Lauter case was filed in April before the
list of defendants was complete.

"You want to make sure, ultimately, that you are suing those most
responsible," Rosen said. "All of them haven't been named yet.
More could be added." Lauter did not file any legal action before
his death.

The character actor worked almost 50 years in the film and
television industry, playing a wide variety of roles. He was best
known for his supporting characters alongside bigger Hollywood
stars. He played a prison guard alongside Burt Reynolds in "The
Longest Yard." He was a vigilante in "Death Wish 3," starring
Charles Bronson. He worked as a baseball scout with Clint Eastwood
in "Trouble with the Curve."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Chichester's County Hall
--------------------------------------------------------
Chichester Observer reported that meetings have had to be
relocated from Chichester's County Hall, in England, after
asbestos was discovered in the ceiling above the main chamber.

West Sussex County Council is unable to hold full council meetings
in the chamber for the immediate future, as the whole roof needs
to be taken off to get rid of the asbestos.

The roof's removal was discussed at a governance committee
meeting, held in a separate room in County Hall, as councillors
discussed changes to the webcast facility.

After the meeting, a spokeswoman for the county council said:
"There are currently problems with the council chamber due to a
roof leak earlier in the year.

"The ceiling of the chamber has an asbestos coating which was
damaged by the water leak, resulting in the chamber having to be
taken out of use.

"The decision has now been taken to remove the entire ceiling and
eliminate the risks relating to asbestos.

"The work to remove the ceiling will take in the order of six to
eight weeks to complete and there will then be a further period of
six to eight weeks for the installation of a new ceiling.

"While we hope to be back in the chamber for the October council
meeting, we will not be able to use it for either the June or July
meetings.

"Arrangements will be made for the meeting to take place in room
140 of county hall where there will also be a public gallery.
Committee room 3 will be used to show the live webcast to ensure
there is full disabled access."

The discovery of the asbestos has already led to one meeting of
the full council being moved -- with April's meeting held at
Chichester College.

The council said it was not yet able to confirm how much the
repair work would cost. It currently has a tender out for
contractors to carry out the work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Strips Fibro Without Face Mask
----------------------------------------------------------
Grant Prior, writing for Construction Enquirer, reported that a
supervisor in charge of removing asbestos from a Canterbury
school, in England, has been prosecuted after he recklessly
exposed himself to the potentially-dangerous material.

Jack Conn, then a supervisor with a Medway company licensed to
remove asbestos, was spotted working unprotected at the site at
Canterbury Academy on 30 May 2013 by an HSE inspector.

Conn was seen walking around inside the sealed enclosure without
wearing his essential respiratory mask, and with the hood of his
protective overalls down.

A second worker could be seen removing the asbestos materials but
with the correct personal protective equipment in use.

Canterbury Magistrates' Court heard that on arrival at the school
the HSE Inspector saw the thorough and correct preparations the
firm had put in place, which included a fenced-off site compound
with restricted access warning signs; a decontamination unit with
three separate cleaning areas and the sealed boiler house with a
three-stage air lock.

Looking to find someone in charge, the Inspector went down to the
basement where work was underway and viewed what was happening
inside the sealed enclosure on a CCTV monitor.  She saw Conn
without his respiratory protection and tried to get his attention
by shouting through an airlock.  When that failed, she rang the
company telling them they needed to get the worker out of the
enclosure.

She filmed some of the CCTV footage before the firm managed to
make contact with the site and the supervisor was told leave the
enclosure.

HSE told the court Conn later admitted his respiratory equipment
was in the enclosure with him, on the floor, and that he was aware
of the risks and the duty to wear it.  He also confirmed he had
undertaken the training to be a supervisor.

Conn, 23, of Upnor, Rochester, Kent, was fined œ1,000 with œ1,500
towards costs after admitting a safety breach.

After the case, HSE Inspector Nicola Wellard said: "It really does
beggar belief that a trained supervisor with a licensed company,
fully aware of the very real dangers associated with exposure to
asbestos, could then casually disregard those dangers and work in
a contaminated environment.

"Jack Conn, as supervisor, should have been setting a high
standard to other employees and being seen to take seriously the
precautions necessary to control the risks to himself and others.

"It was an obviously flagrant and deliberate breach. I hope he
will not come to regret it in years ahead."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delays Add to Fibro Risk
-----------------------------------------
Rosanna Candler, writing for Western Suburbs Weekly, reported that
a delayed report of amendments to the Health (Asbestos)
Regulations 1992 has been sitting on Asbestos Diseases Society of
Australia president Robert Vojakovic's desk for seven years.

Mr Vojakovic said the amendments would introduce increased
penalties, subsequent offence provisions and daily penalties for
asbestos material mishandling or negligence.  He questioned why
the Health Department would propose the amendments if the State
Government would not enforce them.

"They're bragging about it. Every time you go to a meeting they
say, 'Oh we've got these amendments coming up,'" he said.

"The amendments are so important because, at the moment, the
penalties are often no more than a slap on the wrist.

"Asbestos is deteriorating by the day, more fibres are being
released, more people are being diagnosed and thousands are losing
their lives, but 22 years later we cannot get an update on this
report. I want to see these amendments made without delay."

A Health Department spokesman said the proposed amendments were in
final drafting stage and its implementation would be linked to the
new Public Health Act.

"Some delays in preparing the amendments were experienced due to
the need to consider and document regulatory impacts and the
National Asbestos Management Review, which necessitated further
scrutiny on some proposed areas of reform," he said.

Mr Vojakovic said the discovery of asbestos fibres within Lords
recreation centre in March indicated the need for increased
accountability regarding council and government-owned public
buildings.

"The laws simply say you have to have an asbestos register and
just monitor that, but you don't have to do anything if it doesn't
release fibres," he said.

"It is fine that councils check their buildings every year, but
they need to do it properly. I don't know how well they test them,
because who is going to check them if that information is not made
easily public? That's the problem."

A Department of Health spokesman said the majority of government
and council-owned public buildings were deemed to be workplaces
and the main legislation for the management of asbestos was
Occupational Safety and Health legislation and supporting codes of
practice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red Rock Elementary School Fibro-Free
------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Laflin, writing for KOAT7.com, reported that a former state
inspector and school workers are claiming asbestos was being
yanked out of a ceiling where food is prepared at a New Mexico
elementary school.

"It was standard routine. If you came across asbestos, just remove
it and go along with it," said Brice Rohrer, a maintenance man
with the Gallup-McKinley County School District.

Rohrer said he's worked in that position for 17 years.  He said
three years ago at Red Rock Elementary, a pipe broke in the
cafeteria. He said a crew went to fix it, but two men stopped when
they saw it was covered with asbestos.

One did not.

He said asbestos went flying right into the cafeteria over the
food counter during lunch, which caught the attention of a state
inspector.

Benny Kling, now retired from an environmental enforcement officer
position, said Rohrer's story is spot on.

"Asbestos was removed from the school during school hours without
proper protection (and) without proper persons being trained and
by contractors who were not licensed or trained to remove
asbestos," said Kling.

He said he turned the case over to the feds.

A spokesman with New Mexico's Environment Department said tests
were done at Red Rock and samples were taken, but there was no
evidence of asbestos. Kling said that's because by then, the
insulation labeled as asbestos had been removed.

The school was built in 1966.

John Hartog has worked at the school for more than 30 years. He's
been principal for 11.

"I have no fear of asbestos being here," he said.

He said four years ago some was found in the gym plumbing, but it
has been removed.  He said there is none in the cafeteria, and
parents should not be concerned.

State Sen. George Munuz said parents hadn't been properly notified
for months. The state says the feds are involved. They were unable
to be reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Disposal Costs Blamed for Illegal Fibro Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McGowan, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that the
"outrageously high" cost of asbestos disposal in Hunter,
Australia, is hampering efforts to curb the problem of illegal
dumping, members of the local construction industry say.

Though figures for asbestos clean-ups are not independently
available, illegal dumping costs Hunter councils hundreds of
thousands of dollars every year -- in Newcastle, it's about
$100,000, in Lake Macquarie, it's closer to $300,000.

It's a cost that the owner of Toronto Timber and Building
Supplies, David Israel, believes is only going to rise.

"It's an issue because at the moment we're only talking about the
surface of the problem," he said.

"Most buildings built prior to the changes in composition of
insulation in the mid-1980s contain asbestos, and now you've got a
lot of people renovating, demolishing and rebuilding those homes -
the issue is there and it's going to be around for a long time."

Disposing of asbestos the correct way is not cheap - in Newcastle
a tonne will set you back $330, in Lake Macquarie it's $350, in
Cessnock it's $370, while in Maitland it costs $262 per tonne,
plus a $200 additional burial charge per load.

Mr Israel, who worked in the asbestos industry for years before
the 1980s, believes cost is "driving the problem" of dumping and
Len Blakeney, chief executive of the Master Builders Association
in Newcastle, agrees.

"There's a lot [of asbestos] out there, and it's very costly to
dispose of legally," he said.

"I think a lot of people probably get a quote to do it properly
and it all just becomes too expensive; if we could reduce the cost
it would definitely play a part in improving that."

The association runs training in safe asbestos removal - an
industry that is becoming increasingly lucrative - and Mr Blakeney
said there was probably "20 to 30 years' work left in disposal".

A lot of councils say removing the levy - $107.80 in metro areas
and $53.70 in the bush - would help alleviate the cost.

A spokeswoman for Newcastle City Council called it a "major
underlying issue" with asbestos dumping.

"The waste levy is meant to encourage people to recycle because
the cost of dumping is high, which works well for recyclable or
reusable materials," she said.

"However, asbestos cannot be reused or recycled so the waste levy
becomes counter-productive.

"For those of a mind to do the wrong thing, the high cost of
dumping for hazardous waste gives them more reason to do so."

A 2012 review of the waste levy found that there was no
"conclusive evidence" linking the levy to illegal dumping, but
evidence that illegal dumping of asbestos was mostly carried out
by households renovating on a small scale suggested rebates for
households appropriately disposing of asbestos might help reduce
it.

Later in May, the NSW Environment Protection Authority was slated
to announce a trial to scrap the levy at several sites around the
state, as well as paying $50 towards the cost of removing and
transporting asbestos to tips and landfill sites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Exposure Victim Launches Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter Express and Echo reported that an Exeter, England, widow
whose husband died from an asbestos-related disease earlier this
year has issued a plea for his former work colleagues to come
forward.

Diane Allen, 59, is seeking help from former workers at Kneels
Laundry Services, at Cowley Bridge Road Depot.  Her husband
Bernard died at the age of 72 from an asbestos related disease;
mesothelioma in February 2014. Bernard had been fighting this
aggressive cancer since October 2012. This type of cancer is
linked with past exposure to asbestos dust.

Bernard was married to Diane and had been together for 30 years.
His family are devastated and still trying to come to terms with
his death. Bernard had two grown up sons from a previous marriage
and three grandchildren. Before he was diagnosed with his fatal
condition he enjoyed a very active retirement with hobbies of
cycling and karate.

Bernard remembered being exposed to asbestos whilst working for
Kneels Laundry Services in Exeter where he had to drive the wagons
to collect dusty overalls from Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth and
other factories/ foundries. The overalls would have been
contaminated with asbestos dust as this was in the mid 1970s.

He remembered collecting piles of dusty overalls, shaking these
out and putting them in the back of his wagon to take back to the
Cowley Bridge Road Depot in Exeter. Once back at the depot, he put
them in basket trolleys and put them in the lift to take them up
to the sorting area.

The overalls were laundered back at the Depot and Bernard went
inside the large laundry room back at the Depot where there were
commercial sized washing machines and dryers. The building was
pulled down in the early 1980's.

Shortly before his death Bernard told the Echo: "I remember
collecting piles of dusty overalls, shaking these out and putting
them in the back of his wagon to take back to the Cowley Bridge
Road Depot in Exeter. Once back at the depot, we put them in
basket trolleys and put them in the lift to take them up to the
sorting area.

"There was a lot of asbestos lagged pipework in this area. I could
have been exposed to asbestos dust from the work overalls and
asbestos inside the old building of the Kneels Depot. "

Bernard's family have now insructed solicitor, Helen Grady of
Novum Law, Plymouth to investigate this case and have been helping
piece together details of his past exposure.

She said: "This is a particularly sad case as it would appear that
Bernard was exposed to asbestos back in the 1970's and this was at
a time when the dangers of asbestos dust were well known.

"Although compensation awards are very helpful for the families
left behind, they do not change the fact that most people who
contract mesothelioma will be aware that their condition is
terminal.

"Only research investment will change that, together with very
strict adherence to health and safety rules relating to asbestos
and its management. It is the case that 50,000 people are likely
to die of the disease in the UK in the next 30 years and research
investment plus strict adherence to health and safety rules is
something we desperately need to prioritise."

Diane is appealing for people to come forward who may remember the
old building at the Cowley Bridge Road Depot. Former workers may
also remember collecting dusty overalls and bring them back to the
depot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG & Resolute OK'd to Join in Access Info Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Max O. Cagburn, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued
an order dated May 12, 2014, granted Resolute Management, Inc.'s
and the AIG Member Companies' motion to join Ford Motor Company's
motion for withdrawal of the reference with respect to contested
matters relating to access to sealed trial transcripts and
evidence.  Ford Motor sought access to trial transcripts and
evidence filed in the Chapter 11 case of Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC.

The case is FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-00171-MOC
(W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cagburn's Order is
available at http://is.gd/rzyah6from Leagle.com.

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

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

Resolute Management, Inc., Movant, represented by Henry T. M.
LeFevre-Snee, Esq. -- hlefevre-snee@hkmpp.com -- and John S.
Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., and Jodi
Danielle Hildebran, Esq. -- jhildebran@allmanspry.com -- Allman
Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA, and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq.
-- ghumphrey@allmanspry.com -- at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

AIU Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-
Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon &
Poletto, P.A., and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and George
Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

American Home Assurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T.
M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Movant,
represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate,
Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle
Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman
Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

Granite State Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T.
M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

Lexington Insurance Company, Movant, represented by Henry T. M.
LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate, Esq., at Hardin Kundla
McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Esq., and
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman Spry Davis Leggett &
Crumpler, PA.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Movant,
represented by Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esq., and John S. Favate,
Esq., at Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A.; and Jodi Danielle
Hildebran, Esq., and George Dudley Humphrey, III, Esq., at Allman
Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA.

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

Honeywell International, Inc., Movant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- at Davis &
Hamrick, L.L.P., and Nava Hazan, Esq. --
nava.hazan@squiresanders.com -- at Squire & Sanders LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. High Court Flips Ruling in "Blackmon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delores Blackmon filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Federal
Employers' Liability Act, alleging that her husband was exposed to
toxic substances, including asbestos and other chemicals, during
his employment with the Illinois Central Railroad Company and that
that exposure led to his death from mesothelioma.  The railroad
filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the deceased
employee had executed a release, when he settled previous
litigation with the railroad, which served to bar the current
litigation.  The trial court granted the railroad's motion for
summary judgment based on the release.

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson, in an opinion dated
May 16, 2014, reversed and remanded the lawsuit for further
proceedings, holding that the limited record before the Court does
not contain evidence sufficient to demonstrate, conclusively, that
Mr. Blackmon understood that he was at risk of developing
mesothelioma, or, in other words, that it was a risk known to him,
at the time the release was signed.  The only evidence Illinois
Central has submitted on this issue is the boilerplate Release
itself, which contains the terms "mesothelioma" and "asbestos"
buried in a laundry list of other conditions and substances, the
Court noted.

"Evaluating releases under Section 5 of FELA is undeniably a fact-
intensive process, and an assessment of the parties' intent at the
time of agreement 'is an essential element of this inquiry,'" the
Court said, citing Acuff, 950 So.2d at 960 (quoting Wicker, 142
F.3d at 700).  Illinois Central has not submitted evidence
demonstrating that the Plaintiff cannot prove the invalidity of
the Release at trial or cannot prove that Mr. Blackmon was not
aware of the risk of mesothelioma when he signed the release, the
Court ruled.  Therefore, the Court found that the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment to Illinois Central based on
the Release.

The case is DELORES BLACKMON, Individually and as surviving spouse
and personal representative of DOLPHUS H. BLACKMON v. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Individually and successor-in-interest
to Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, and Illinois Central Gulf
Railroad Company, ET AL., NO. W2013-01605-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.).
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 16, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/MnBycFfrom Leagle.com.

Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee; John E.
("Rett") Guerry, III, Esq., in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina; Joe
H. Byrd, Jr., Esq., in Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellants,
Delores Blackmon, Individually and as surviving spouse and
personal representative of Dolphus H. Blackmon.

Thomas R. Peters, Esq., and Michael C. Hermann, Esq., in
Belleville, Illinois; Brooks E. Kostakis, Esq., in Memphis,
Tennessee, for the appellee, Illinois Central Railroad Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSG PI Claimants Allowed to Proceed with Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware recommended that certain appeals filed by
asbestos claimants of Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., et al., be
withdrawn from the mandatory referral for mediation and proceed
through the appellate process of the District Court.  The asbestos
claimants filed appeals from orders by the bankruptcy court in
Wilmington, Del., approving the OSG's omnibus objections to
claims.

The appeals are IN RE: Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. et al.,
relating to Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas
Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-103-GMS, BANKRUPTCY
CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-112; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants,
v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-104-
GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-113; Asbestos
Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group Inc.,
Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-106-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP
NO. 13-114; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas
Shipholding Group Inc., Appellee, C. A. NO. 14-107-GMS, BANKRUPTCY
CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 13-115; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants,
v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO.
14-480-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-9; Asbestos
Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et
al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-481-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-
20000, AP NO. 14-10; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas
Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-482-GMS,
BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-11; Asbestos Claimants,
Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al.,
Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-483-GMS, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP
NO. 14-12; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants, v. Overseas Shipholding
Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO. 14-484-GMS, BANKRUPTCY
CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-13; Asbestos Claimants, Appellants,
v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc., et al., Appellees, C. A. NO.
14-604, BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 12-20000, AP NO. 14-14 (D. Del.).  A
full-text copy of the Recommendation dated May 14, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/szzr0kfrom Leagle.com.

Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. et al, Debtor, represented by
Derek C. Abbott, Esq. -- dabbott@mnat.com -- and Daniel Bryan
Butz, Esq. -- dbutz@mnat.com -- at Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell LLP.

Asbestos Claimants, Appellant, represented by Kathleen M. Miller,
Smith, Esq. -- kmiller@skjlaw.com -- at Katzenstein, & Jenkins
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Take-Home Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr., appeals following the grant of a motion
for nonsuit in favor of Pneumo Abex, LLC.  Kesner's uncle was
employed by Abex from 1973 to 2007.  Kesner seeks to hold Abex
liable for mesothelioma he contracted, allegedly due in part to
his exposure, while present in his uncle's home, to friable
asbestos that his uncle brought home from work on his clothing.
In granting nonsuit in Abex's favor, the trial court, relying on
the decision in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th
15 (Campbell), concluded that "Abex owed no duty to Kesner for any
exposure to asbestos through contact with an employee of the Abex
plant, . . . none of which exposures took place at or inside
Abex's plant."  In defending the ruling, Abex contends that "no
duty is owed [by an employer] to family members of workers for
take-home exposures."

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, in an opinion dated May 15, 2014, reversed the judgment,
and said it does not believe that such a broad and unqualified
limitation on an employer's duty accurately states the law.  The
Court accepted the premise that the prospect of "indeterminate
liability" places a limitation on those to whom the duty of
exercising reasonable care may extend but also recognized the
difficulty in articulating the limits of that duty and the
different conclusions that courts throughout the country have
reached when considering claims for secondary exposure to toxics,
particularly asbestos, emanating from the workplace.

The duty of care undoubtedly does not extend to every person who
comes into contact with an employer's workers, but the Court
concluded that the duty runs at least to members of an employee's
household who are likely to be affected by toxic materials brought
home on the worker's clothing.  While Kesner was not a member of
his uncle's household in the normal sense, he was a frequent
visitor, spending several nights a week in the home.  After
consideration of the factors specified in Rowland v. Christian
(1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland), as instructed by the Supreme Court
in Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cabral),
the Court concluded that the likelihood of causing harm to a
person with such recurring and non-incidental contact with the
employer's employee, in this case Kesner's uncle, is sufficient to
bring Kesner within the scope of those to whom the employer, in
this case Abex, owes the duty to take reasonable measures to avoid
causing harm.

The cases are JOHNNY BLAINE KESNER, JR., Petitioner, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; PNEUMO ABEX LLC,
Real Party in Interest, NO. A136378; and JOHNNY BLAINE KESNER,
JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Defendant and
Respondent, NO. A136416 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/2Ym6aifrom
Leagle.com.

Benno Ashrafi, Esq., Cindy Saxey, Esq., Josiah Parker, Esq., Ted
W. Pelletier, Esq., at WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., Counsel for
Appellant Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr.

Counsel for Real Party in Interest, Pneumo Abex LLC, is:

         Edward R. Hugo, Esq.
         James C. Parker, Esq.
         Jeffrey Kaufman, Esq.
         BRYDON HUGO & PARKER
         135 Main Street, 20th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105

Don Willenburg, Esq. -- dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON &
REES LLP, for Association of Defense Counsel of Northern
California and Nevada; and Curt Cutting, Esq. --
ccutting@horvitzlevy.com -- and Steven Fleishman, Esq. --
sfleischman@horvitzlevy.com -- at HORVITZ & LEVY, LLC, for
Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, Counsel as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Pneumo-Abex, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court Affirms Judgment in "Fields" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Fields, 293 Ga. 499 (748 S.E.2d 407)
(2013), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of the
Court of Appeals of Georgia in Division 1 (d) of Union Carbide
Corp. v. Field, 315 Ga.App. 554 (726 S.E.2d 521) (2012), in which
the Court of Appeals affirmed the partial grant of summary
judgment to Rhonda and Gary Fields on the defense of nonparty
fault as it pertained to Central Moloney, Inc., Nehring Electrical
Works Co., Phelps Dodge Cable & Wire, Southern States LLC and
Southwire Co.  Consequently, the Court of Appeals vacated Division
1 (d) of its opinion in Union Carbide, supra, and in its place
adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as its own.

The Supreme Court did not address or consider Divisions 1 (a)-(c)
or Division 1 (e) of the Court of Appeals' earlier opinion, in
which it concluded that the trial court properly granted partial
summary judgment to the Fields on the defendants' nonparty defense
as it pertained to Georgia Power Company, Ford Motor Company,
Genuine Parts Co., Chrysler LLC, General Motors, Asbestos
Corporation Ltd., Atlas Asbestos, Johnson Mines, Nicolet
Industries and Pacific Asbestos.  The Supreme Court also did not
address or consider Division 2 of the earlier opinion in which the
Court of Appeals held that a factual issue remained as to
causation with regard to Mrs. Fields's exposure to Union Carbide's
product.  Since those portions of the earlier opinion are
consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, Divisions 1 (a)-(c),
Division 1 (e) and Division 2 of the earlier opinion "become
binding upon the return of the remittitur."

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated May 5,
2014, reversed the grant of partial summary judgment to the
Fieldses on the defendants' nonparty defense as it pertained to
Central Moloney, Inc., Nehring Electrical Works Co., Phelps Dodge
Cable & Wire, Southern States LLC and Southwire Co.  The Court of
Appeals affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the
Fieldses on the defendants' nonparty defense as it pertained to
Georgia Power Co., Ford Motor Co., Genuine Parts Co., Chrysler
LLC, General Motors, Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Atlas Asbestos, Johnson
Mines, Nicolet Indus. and Pacific Asbestos.

The case is UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION et al, v. RHONDA FIELDS et
al., A11A2025 (Ga. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/xBPWhdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Order in Colgate Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate Palmolive Company appealed from a federal district court's
denial of its motion to vacate an order remanding an exposure
lawsuit, contending that it was error for the district court to
rule that it did not have the authority to consider whether the
plaintiffs' counsel committed misconduct and "whether such
misconduct warrants relief from the Remand Orders."

The case involves two defendants who separately sued Colgate and a
variety of other companies in Maryland state court, asserting that
each of the defendants' products had at some point exposed them to
asbestos.  With respect to Colgate, the plaintiffs' theory was
that its "Cashmere Bouquet" line of powder makeup products
contained unhealthy levels of asbestos and had thereby contributed
to the plaintiffs' health problems.

A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit rejected Colgate's collateral attack on the remand
orders and affirmed the district court's order insofar as it ruled
that it lacked jurisdiction.  The Fourth Court explained that the
federal removal statute immunizes from review -- appellate or
otherwise -- any order remanding to state court a case removed to
federal court, with an exception for certain civil rights cases or
suits against federal officers.  In particular, the statute has
been interpreted to "preclude review only of remands for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and for defects in removal procedure."

The Fourth Circuit emphasized that it is Congress' explicit
direction to federal courts that an order remanding a case for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after it has been removed "is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise."

The appellate cases are JOYCE BARLOW, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN CRANE-
HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE
INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL
REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly Springfield Tire
Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining Director Trustees, Robert
I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; CBS
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Successor
by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION,
individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER
GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to
Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood Corp.; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co.,
Aventis CropScience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc.,
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
individually and as successors in interest to Crouse Hinds Co.;
PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., f/k/a Square D
Company, individually and as successor in interest to Electric
Controller and Manufacturing Co.; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC,
individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; FOSTER
WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST;
CONWED CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; and GEORGIA PACIFIC
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Bestwall
Gypsum Co., Defendants, NO. 13-1839; and CLARA G. MOSKO,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellant, and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING &
CO., INCORPORATED; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H.
Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE
REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a
Kelly Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining
Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and
Patricia Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a
Viacom, Inc.,f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in
interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to Benjamin Foster, Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B.
Fuller Co., Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG
Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to
Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA,
INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in
interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; FOSTER
WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST;
CONWED CORPORATION; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as
successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; 3M COMPANY; MALLINCKRODT, INC.;
CROWN, CORK & SEAL CO., INC.; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; WALTER E.
CAMPBELL CO., INC.; KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, individually and as
successor to National Asbestos Company, a dissolved Delaware
Corporation; AC&R INSULATION CO., INC.; COTY, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; LUZENAC AMERICA INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC.;
BAYER CORPORATION, as successor in interest to Sterling Drug,
Inc., and Sterling-Winthrop Inc.; and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendants, NO. 13-1840 (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's decision dated April 30,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/2rm2Jofrom Leagle.com.

William Balden Adams, Esq. -- williamadams@quinnemanuel.com -- at
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York, New York,
argued for Appellant.  Thomas P. Bernier, Esq. --
tbernier@smsm.com -- at SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, in
Baltimore, Maryland; and Faith E. Gay, Esq. --
faithgay@quinnemanuel.com -- at QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP, in New York, New York, filed the brief for Appellant.

Jennifer Louise Lilly, Esq., at LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS,
in Baltimore, Maryland, argued for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Bid to Vacate NOI in Suits Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., moves to vacate the Note of Issue
in three asbestos personal injury actions.  The Plaintiffs oppose
and cross-move for sanctions.  Judge Sherry Klien Heitler of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied CB's motions to vacate in
their entirety, finding that CB was in clear violation of the
long-standing NYCAL rule that all discovery and trial-readiness
disputes must be brought before the Special Master in the first
instance, and, should the dispute continue, only then by petition
to the court.  Judge Heitler sternly warned CB to adhere to
provisions of the Case Management Order in the NYCAL in order to
avoid inconsistent rulings, waste of resources, and, importantly,
sanctions.

The cases are EDWARD L. DUL and GLORIA DUL, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants; CHARLES F.
HILLYER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al.,
Defendants; JOHN MURRAY and MARY MURRAY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants; DOCKET NO. 190571/12, NO.
190132/13., 190554/13, MOTION SEQ. 004, MOTION SEQ. 002 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order
dated April 25, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/sIdiMafrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in "Fields" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two,
in a decision dated April 29, 2014, reversed a trial court's
judgment granting the motion for summary judgment filed by a
defendant in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit, agreeing
with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant did not meet
its initial burden of production and that, even if it did meet
that burden, he had produced evidence that established a triable
issue of material fact.  The case is DONALD FIELDS, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant and
Respondent, NO. A136572 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/f6CLvPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Dependent Benefits Claim Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in a memorandum
decision dated April 14, 2014, affirmed the decision of the Board
of Review affirming the order of the Workers' Compensation Office
of Judges.  The Office of Judges affirmed the claims
administrator's decision denying a widow's request for dependent
benefits relating to her husband's death, which allegedly was
caused by exposure to asbestos while he was working for Alcan
Rolled Products.  The Supreme Court of Appeals found that the
decision of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of any
constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the
result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a
material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary
record.

The case is LOUISE FRANK, WIDOW OF CLARENCE S. FRANK (DECEASED),
Claimant Below, Petitioner, v. ALCAN ROLLED PRODUCTS --
RAVENSWOOD, LLC, Employer Below, Respondent, No. 12-1247 (W. Va.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/7StZg5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Keeps Ruling in Legal Malpractice Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Frazier brought a suit against her former attorneys,
alleging that they committed malpractice by mishandling claims
pertaining to her husband's illness and death from mesothelioma.
The district court concluded that Frazier's suit was time-barred
under Tennessee's one-year limitations period for malpractice
actions and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The sole question presented on appeal is whether Frazier suffered
her alleged injuries more than one year before filing.  Because
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the
district court that she did, it affirmed the district court's
grant of summary judgment.

The case is DONNA FRAZIER, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Joseph Frazier, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. SIDNEY JACKSON; KEVIN GRAHAM; JACKSON, FOSTER &
RICHARDSON, LLC, Successor in Interest Jackson, Foster & Graham;
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC; MICHAEL PADWAY;
MICHAEL PADWAY & ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-6045
(6th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 21, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/0F2f9Hfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appleton Denied Summary Judgment in NY PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated April 3, 2014, denied defendant
Appleton Electric LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing all
claims and cross-claims asserted against it in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit styled STANLEY FRIEDMAN & PHYLLIS
FRIEDMAN, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 190187/12, MOTION SEQ. 008 (N.Y. Sup.)., after
finding that there is material issue whether Appleton's fiber
fillers actually contained asbestos.  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/h3HlQ7from
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  * * *