CAR_Public/140613.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 117

                             Headlines


AG ADRIANO: Sued Over False "Made in U.S.A." Apparel Products
ALLIED STAFF: Removed "Farnham" Suit to M.D. Florida
ALLY FINANCIAL: Manipulates Lease Agreement Option, Suit Claims
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Sued for Failing to Properly Pay Employees
ARMSTRONG NATIONAL: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act

CALLFIRE INC: Contacted Class in Violation of TCPA, Suit Claims
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Setzer" Suit Claims
CARBONITE INC: Faces "Shainfeld" Suit Over Loss of Computer Data
CBS CORP: Former U.S. E-book Retailers File Suit in New York
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Reached in Met-Pro Merger Suit

CENTERFOLD ENTERTAINMENT: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Nev. Gas Market Manipulation Case
CHINCHOR ELECTRIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages & Damages
CLEAN HARBORS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Extend Discovery Cutoff
COMCAST CORP: Removed "Smerling" Suit to New Jersey District Ct.

COMMONWEALTH REIT: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Mass.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Royalties
CRANE CO: Class of Homeowners Near Roseland, N.J. Certified
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Removed "LeCroy" Suit to S.C. District Court
DEAN FOODS: To Seek High Court Review in Milk Purchasers' Suit

DEAN FOODS: Seeks to Dismiss Indirect Milk Purchasers' Lawsuit
DELLA NONA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Workers Claim
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Spira" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Seeks Cert. of Tenn. Lawsuit
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces FLSA Violation Suit in Arkansas

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit by Garland Facility Patients
ECOLAB INC: Expects to Pay Settlement in Labor Suit This June
ECOLAB INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged FLSA Violations
ECOLAB INC: Nalco Still Faces Suit Related to Deepwater Oil Spill
ECOLAB INC: Provides Updates on Claims v. Nalco in MDL 2179

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Motion to Junk Pa. Shareholder Suit Heard
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: "Bushansky" Shareholder Litigation Stayed
ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Unlawful Marketing Scheme for of Opana ER
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
EPL OIL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Del. Over Merger

FANNIE MAE: Approval of Securities Suit Settlement Appealed
FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Securities & ERISA Suits in N.Y.
FANNIE MAE: Retirement Systems' Securities Actions Remain Pending
FANNIE MAE: Partial Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit Upheld
FANNIE MAE: Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Stock Purchase Deal

FIFTH THIRD: Visa, Mastercard Antitrust Suit Settlement Disclosed
FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Ruling in ERISA Suits Seen This Month
FIFTH THIRD: Sued Over Inaccessible Facilities for Disabled
FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Suit Related to Overdraft Fees Continues
G2 SECURE: Removed "Marshall" Suit to C.D. California

GENERAL MOTORS: Concealed Switch Defects, "Smith" Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: 2004 Crash Victims File Suit to Reopen Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: Ousts Two Product Litigation Attorneys
GLOBAL OFFSHORE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: "Teal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

GREAT-WEST LIFE: Faces "Teets" Suit Over Retirement Plan Fees
HAO KE LAI ENTERPRISE: Chan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
INFOBLOX INC: Faces "Beqaj" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
INNOVATIVE EMERGENCY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
JACOBY & MEYERS: Sued for Alleged Overcharging of Service Fee

JT WALTERS: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
KEURIG GREEN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Beverage Cartridges
KORYEO INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LA FE FOODS: Faces "Jaliper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAVANDERIA EXPRESS: Faces "Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

M L RESTAURANT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Suit in Discovery
MATISS INC: Accused of Sending Junk Faxes Without Prior Consent
MCWANE INC: Manipulates Prices of Iron Pipe Fittings, Suit Says
MERCK & CO: Settlement in Vioxx Product Liability Suits Approved

MERCK & CO: Discovery Now Closed in Vioxx Securities Litigations
MERCK & CO: Formalizes Settlement in Fosamax ONJ MDL
MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Stays ENHANCE Securities "Opt-Out" Cases
MINORITY MOBILE: Removed "Solar" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
NBT BANK: Faces "Berthelson" Suit Over Foreclosure Practices

NL INDUSTRIES: New Cert. Motion Filed in Lewis v. Lead Industries
OAKLEY INC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, "Cohen" Suit Claims
PACKAGING CORP: Sept. 4 Final Hearing to Approve Kleen Settlement
PFIZER INC: Securities, Derivative, ERISA MDL Continues in N.Y.
PFIZER INC: Still Faces Securities Litigation in New York Court

PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Faces Suit Over Effexor XR in New Jersey
PFIZER INC: Settles 3rd-Party Payer Suit Over Neurontin for $325M
PFIZER INC: Settles Neurontin Antitrust Lawsuit for $190MM
PFIZER INC: Lipitor Antitrust Lawsuit in Pre-trial Proceedings
PFIZER INC: Suits Over Champix Stayed in Favor of Ontario Action

PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Stock Suit Over Bapineuzumab Appealed
PFIZER INC: Inks Settlement of Ill. Suit Over Co-Pay Programs
PREMIUM ROOFING: Suit Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Fax Ads
S&S CENTRE: Faces "Witt" Action in Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
S&S CENTRE: Sued in C.D. Calif. Over TCPA Violation

SONCO TRUCKING: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SPECIALIZED AUTOMATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Claims
STEVENS COMMERCIAL: Sends Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Approval of Securities Suit Accord Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Checking Account Overdraft Suit in Discovery

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Griner Overdraft Suit Accord Up for Approval
TELEXFREE LLC: Ferguson et al. Suit Alleges Ponzi Scheme
TIMMONS CONCRETE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Settlement of Overdraft Lawsuits Approved
VILLAGGIO CATERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $7MM to Settle 53,000 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Pending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,300 Pending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 15 Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Received $19MM Insurance Payments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $692-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Insurers Commence Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Found on Children's Clothes & Toys
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Registry Expanded for Saskatchewan Bldgs.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Launched After Fibro Risk Closes School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposed in Hereford Ambulance Garage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Led to Lymington Veteran's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Rules That Exposure Theory Insufficient
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Disposal Trial in Penrith, NSW Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dust in Glasgow Bins Lead to Exposure Fear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Fined Over "Flagrant" Fibro Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Campaigner in Queensland Dies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Fears Grow for Naval Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Fibro Victim Widows in Search for Truth

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington Company Fined $5,500 Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Flully Found in Canberra Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Fail to Prove Exposure to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Looking for Fibro in Ropes Crossing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Heading to Prison Over Fibro Pollution

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit Filed by Former Texaco Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Safety Rules Take Effect in Singapore
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sack Neil" Call in Fibro Wards Row
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Managers Jailed for Fibro Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Led to Death of Former Electrician

ASBESTOS UPDATE: LSU Studio Art Bldg. Closes for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Grammar Camp Nixed After Fibro Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleckheaton Man Exposed to Fibro From Age 15
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solicitor Calls for Naval Ships to Be Checked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Committee Asks Court to Amend Rule 2019 Order

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former WR Grace Worker's Rep Lacked Standing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Wrongful Discharge Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in Mixers' PD Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Remands "Radosta" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Denies Inmates' Bid to Compel Discovery

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Finds Removal of "Totten" Suit Proper
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Gillenwater" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC's Bid to Dismiss "Vantosh" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Vedros" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Rescission Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Whalen" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Bid to Junk "Babravich" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss " Chiaravallotti" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cummins' Insurance Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Haver" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Allowed to Subpoena Bankruptcy Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Fulwider" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Blessing" Suit Transferred to District Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Suit Against Dissolved Cos. Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Affirms $250,000 Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Illegal Suspension Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal Filed in NY Fibro Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Tort Claims v. Placid Oil Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Kelly-Moore Insurance Suit Denied


                            *********


AG ADRIANO: Sued Over False "Made in U.S.A." Apparel Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Paz, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AG Adriano Goldschmied, Inc., a California
corporation; Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation; and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-01372-DMS-DHB (S.D. Cal.,
June 4, 2014) alleges that through an unlawful, deceptive and
unfair course of conduct, the Defendants manufactured, marketed,
and sold to California consumers a variety of AGAG apparel
products with the false designation and representation that the
AGAG apparel was "Made in U.S.A."

Mr. Paz contends that the offending apparel products are
substantially made, manufactured or produced from component parts
that are manufactured outside of the United States in violation of
California law and federal law.  He adds that major components of
the apparel products, including the fabric, thread, buttons,
subcomponents of the zipper assembly and rivets, are manufactured
outside the United States.

AG Adriano Goldschmied, Inc. is a California corporation.  AGAG is
a leading designer and manufacturer of men's and women's denim
jean products.  AGAG sells its products through its own stores,
online, and through high-end retailers, including Nordstrom, Inc.

Seattle-based Nordstrom, Inc., is a Washington corporation doing
business under and by virtue of the laws of the state of
California.  Nordstrom is a fashion specialty retailer that offers
apparel, shoes, cosmetics, and accessories for women, men, and
children in the United States.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Donboli, Esq.
          JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
          DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
          12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-6244
          Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
          E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com
                  sslattery@delmarlawgroup.com


ALLIED STAFF: Removed "Farnham" Suit to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Farnham v. Allied Staff
Augmentation Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-003660-CI, was
removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:14-cv-01323-VMC-AEP to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Janet Farnham alleges that the Defendants had a policy
and practice of requiring her and similarly situated employees to
work in excess of 40 hours each workweek without paying them wages
and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schuette, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          9700 Dr. MLK Jr. St., Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          Facsimile: (727) 579-9109
          E-mail: mschuette@johnbales.com

Defendants Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc., and Richard
Barns are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Crotty, Esq.
          PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
          401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 335-6627
          Facsimile: (704) 335-4468
          E-mail: jonathancrotty@parkerpoe.com

Defendants Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Lynn Good and Jennifer Weber
are represented by:

          Andrew R. Lincoln, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 261-7839
          Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
          E-mail: dlincoln@fordharrison.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Manipulates Lease Agreement Option, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Schreiber, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ally Financial Inc., a Delaware corporation,
d/b/a Ally Bank, f/k/a GMAC, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-22069 (S.D.
Fla., June 4, 2014), arises from the alleged undisclosed fees that
are added to the purchase option price listed in the SmartLease
agreement.

Ally Financial Inc., is a Delaware financial services corporation
located at 200 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan, 48265.
It directed its business activities, including the financing of
auto leases, to residents of the State of Florida, including
within the Southern District of Florida, from which it has derived
pecuniary gain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gravante , III, Esq.
      Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800,
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: jgravante@podhurst.com
              mweinshall@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Sued for Failing to Properly Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. American Greetings Corporation, an Ohio
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02577 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiffs
and other current and former non-exempt employees overtime wages
and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Greetings Corporation is the world's largest greeting
card company, and sells paper greeting cards, electronic greeting
cards, party products, and electronic expressive content, among
other things.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq.
      WOODALL LAW OFFICES
      580 California Street, 16th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 413-4629
      E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


ARMSTRONG NATIONAL: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Boshart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Armstrong National Security Force, LLC, and Michael L.
Byrd, individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-00434 (S.D. Miss., June 3,
2014), seeks to recover damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Armstrong National Security Force, LLC, is a corporation that is
incorporated in Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Nicholas Norris, Esq.
      Louis H. Watson , Jr., Esq.
      WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
      1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G,
      Jackson, MS 39216
      Telephone: (601) 968-0000
      Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
      E-mail: nick@watsonnorris.com
              louis@watsonnorris.com


CALLFIRE INC: Contacted Class in Violation of TCPA, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Kauffman, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. CallFire, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01333-H-DHB (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2014) is brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and other remedies resulting from the Company's
alleged illegal actions in negligently, and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff through "text" messages on his cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

CallFire is a Delaware corporation that maintains its corporate
headquarters in Santa Monica, California.  CallFire provides voice
and text connectively to over 100,000 businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Daniel Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Setzer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Setzer individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-
03429 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2014), seeks to redress the illegal
practices of the Defendant for using false, deceptive, and
misleading practices, and other illegal practices, in connection
with its attempts to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff
and others, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Capital Management Services, L.P., is a "debt collector", its
principal place of business is located within Buffalo, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Palace, Esq.
      383 Kingston Avenue, #113,
      Brooklyn, NY 11213
      Telephone: (347) 651-1077
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
      E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


CARBONITE INC: Faces "Shainfeld" Suit Over Loss of Computer Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shainfeld & Anvar, PC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Carbonite, Inc., and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-04318 (C.D. Cal., June 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged wrongful
business practice of failing to disclose to consumers that its
computer backup services and software fails to back up their
consumers' computer data thereby resulting in consumers' loss of
computer data and payment for Carbonite's nonfunctional services.

Carbonite, Inc., provides online computer backup service for
documents, electronic mail, music, photos and the like to more
than 1.5 million customers, including 50,000 small business
customers nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725,
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


CBS CORP: Former U.S. E-book Retailers File Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Two former U.S. e-book retailers filed antitrust suits against
book publishers in the United States Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to CBS Corporation's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Commencing in 2012, a number of antitrust suits were filed and/or
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Simon & Schuster, other book
publishers and Apple Inc. ("Apple") in connection with these book
publishers' agency arrangements regarding the distribution of e-
books to e-book retailers. Simon & Schuster has settled all of
these actions without any admission of wrongdoing or liability and
has adopted certain business and compliance practices as part of
certain settlements. On April 10, 2012, Simon & Schuster and two
other book publisher parties entered into a settlement stipulation
and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with an
antitrust action filed by the DOJ, which was approved by the court
on September 7, 2012. The Stipulation requires the adoption of
certain business practices for a 24 month period (the "24 Month
Period") and certain compliance practices for a five year period.
In addition, as previously disclosed, in connection with Simon &
Schuster's settlement of an antitrust suit filed with the court on
April 11, 2012 by the U.S. states and territories and the District
of Columbia (the "States Settlement"), Simon & Schuster adopted
certain business and compliance practices substantially similar to
those described in the Stipulation. The Company believes that
continuing to comply with these business and compliance practices
pursuant to the Stipulation and States Settlement, which are the
only outstanding obligations under these settlements, will not
have a material adverse effect on its results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.

Following a ruling in favor of the DOJ and a judgment against
Apple that was entered by the court on September 6, 2013 in one of
the antitrust suits, Apple filed an appeal, which will be heard by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
October 4, 2013, Simon & Schuster filed an appeal with the court
relating to an aspect of the Apple judgment involving the 24 Month
Period.

Similar antitrust suits have been filed against the Publishing
parties by private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class
actions, under Canadian law, commencing on February 24, 2012; and
by an Australian e-book retailer on September 16, 2013, and two
former U.S. e-book retailers in March 2014, each in the United
States Court for the Southern District of New York. Simon &
Schuster intends to defend itself in these matters.


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Reached in Met-Pro Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the suit Raymond Gold v. Met-Pro
Corporation, et al., according to Ceco Environmental Corp.'s May
8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Met-Pro and the Met-Pro former board of directors are named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit brought by an
alleged former Met-Pro shareholder who challenged the proposed
mergers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The case is captioned Raymond Gold v.
Met-Pro Corporation, et al., filed July 8, 2013, and alleges,
among other things, that the Met-Pro board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties to Met-Pro and its shareholders in approving
the merger agreement at an unfair price, unduly restricting other
potential bidders from making competing offers, failing to consult
with other bidders to create a competitive bid process, and unduly
limiting the board's ability to consider and potentially accept an
alternative proposal. The action seeks an award of unspecified
money damages. Met-Pro and the Company believe that these claims
are without merit; however, in order to avoid the risk of delaying
the consummation of the acquisition and to avoid the costs,
disruption and distraction of further litigation, on July 20,
2013, Met-Pro entered into a memorandum of understanding (the
"MOU") with the plaintiff to settle the foregoing action without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing. As part of the MOU, Met-Pro
made certain additional disclosures related to the acquisition. On
February 25, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement, as contemplated by the MOU, which provides, among
other things, for the conditional certification of a non-opt out
class, for settlement purposes only, that includes any and all
persons or entities who held shares of Met-Pro common stock,
either of record or beneficially, at any time between April 22,
2013, the date Met-Pro announced the merger agreement, and August
27, 2013, the date of the consummation of the acquisition. The
stipulation of settlement also provides for the payment of up to
$0.2 million for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs to the
attorneys for the class. The settlement and the amount of
attorneys' fees and costs are subject to court approval, and there
can be no assurance that the court will approve such settlement.
Based on currently available information, as of March 31, 2014,
the company recorded a reserve of $0.2 million with respect to
this matter.


CENTERFOLD ENTERTAINMENT: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamatrica Bonton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Centerfold Entertainment Club, Inc., Jessie
Orrell, individually and as Officer and/or Director of Centerfold
Entertainment Club, Case No. 6:14-cv-06074 (W.D. Ark., June 4,
2014), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and fees within
the applicable statutory limitations period as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Centerfold Entertainment Club, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation
that operates an adult entertainment club at 1396 East Grand
Avenue, Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Joshua Lee West, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 400
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (866) 591-4661
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
              west@sanfordlawfirm.com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Nev. Gas Market Manipulation Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., remains a defendant in a case
now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to
inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002, according to
Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor,
Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of
their former subsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain
lawsuits described. Under a master separation agreement between
CenterPoint Energy and a former subsidiary, Reliant Resources,
Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled
to be indemnified by RRI and its successors for any losses,
including certain attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of
these lawsuits.  In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business
to a subsidiary of NRG and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy,
Inc. In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and became a
wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to GenOn
Energy, Inc. (GenOn). In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through
a merger in which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG.
None of the sale of the retail business, the merger with Mirant
Corporation, or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI's (now
GenOn's) contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy
and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certain
liabilities, including their indemnification obligations regarding
the gas market manipulation litigation, nor does it affect the
terms of existing guarantee arrangements for certain GenOn gas
transportation contracts.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, alleged
violations of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits sought a variety of forms of relief, including,
among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in
excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages, full
consideration damages and attorneys' fees. CenterPoint Energy
and/or Reliant Energy were named in approximately 30 of these
lawsuits, which were instituted between 2003 and 2009. CenterPoint
Energy and its affiliates have since been released or dismissed
from all but one such case. CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.
(CES), a subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., is a
defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada
alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in
2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims against other defendants in the case, each of
whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for resale during
the relevant period, based on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs
appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims. In August 2013, the other defendants filed a
petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. CenterPoint
Energy believes that CES is not a proper defendant in this case
and will continue to pursue a dismissal.  CenterPoint Houston does
not expect the ultimate outcome of this matter to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CHINCHOR ELECTRIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Belland, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Chinchor Electric, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Timothy I.
Chinchor, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-00842-ACC-TBS (M.D. Fla.,
May 30, 2014) is brought to recover from the Defendants overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chinchor Electric, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in Orange City, Volusia County,
Florida.  Timothy I. Chinchor owns, manages and operates Chinchor
Electric, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          15l5 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


CLEAN HARBORS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Extend Discovery Cutoff
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a suit alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly
assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees has filed
a motion to extend a discovery cutoff and trial date, but the
court has not ruled on these requests, according to Clean Harbors,
Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. Safety-Kleen disputes
the basis of the claims on numerous grounds, including that
Safety-Kleen has contracts with numerous customers authorizing the
assessment of such fees and that in cases where no contract exists
Safety-Kleen provides customers with a document at the time of
service reflecting the assessment of the fee, followed by an
invoice itemizing the fee. It is Safety-Kleen's position that it
had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that the customers
consented to the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily
paid by the customers when presented with an invoice. The lawsuit
is still in its initial stages of discovery, with the focus being
whether a class will be certified. The class certification-related
fact discovery cutoff was extended to June 4, 2014, and a hearing
on class certification will be scheduled to occur after October
15, 2014. The plaintiff has filed a motion to extend the discovery
cutoff and trial date, but the court has not ruled on these
requests.

In late June 2012, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by the
same law firm on behalf of a California-based customer. That
lawsuit contends, under various state law theories, that Safety-
Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges and late payment fees
and seeks certification of a class of California customers only.
Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the Alabama
litigation.

In December 2012, a similar suit was filed by the same law firm on
behalf of a Missouri-based customer which contends under various
state law theories that Safety-Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel
surcharges and seeks certification of a class of Missouri
customers only. Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in
the Alabama and California cases. Plaintiff's class certification
brief must be filed by May 1, 2014, with Safety-Kleen's opposition
due by June 2, 2014. Trial has been set for May 18, 2015. The
Company is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of
monetary liability or financial impact, if any, with respect to
these matters as of March 31, 2014, and no reserve has been
recorded.


COMCAST CORP: Removed "Smerling" Suit to New Jersey District Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Smerling v. Comcast
Corporation, et al., Case No. MID-L-2448-14, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03452-MAS-TJB to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Wei Li, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: ali@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael P. Daly, Esq.
          DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          500 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
          Telephone: (973) 360-1100
          E-mail: michael.daly@dbr.com


COMMONWEALTH REIT: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in Young v. CommonWealth REIT are seeking to dismiss
the suit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, according to the company's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 27, 2012, David Young filed a putative federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District
Court, titled Young v. CommonWealth REIT, Civ. No. 1:12-cv-12405-
DJC, or the Young Action. The Young Action is brought on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common shares between January 10, 2012
and August 8, 2012, and alleges securities fraud claims against
CWH and certain of the company's officers under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleges generally that CWH violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading representations
about the company's business, operations and management. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus counsel fees and
expenses. On January 22, 2013, CWH moved to dismiss the Young
Action on the grounds that the claims asserted (1) are subject to
binding arbitration under the company's bylaws, and (2) fail to
state a claim for relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The company also filed a demand for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, or AAA. On
February 25, 2013, Mr. Young filed a motion to appoint him as lead
plaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel, which the Massachusetts
District Court granted on May 20, 2013, all in accordance with
customary procedures for purported class action litigation. On
July 22, 2013, Mr. Young filed an amended complaint. On September
20, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to the company's position that the claims in this action
are subject to mandatory arbitration, and, in the alternative, to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under the federal securities
laws. The parties completed briefing on December 3, 2013. A
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for May
28, 2014.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing and a class has not been certified in a suit
against Continental Resources, Inc., alleging it improperly
deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs
and other royalty interest owners, according to the company's May
8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged. The Company is
not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range
of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to
the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, the production years
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. The
class has not been certified. Plaintiffs have indicated that if
the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $165
million which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of
which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes
plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements
for a class action and is vigorously defending the case.


CRANE CO: Class of Homeowners Near Roseland, N.J. Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class of 139 homeowners was certified in a suit over high levels
of volatile organic compound vapors near a former manufacturing
facility of Crane Co. in Roseland, New Jersey, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2009, at the request of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, the Company performed certain tests of
the indoor air quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential
area surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New
Jersey (the "Site"), where the Company had performed soil and
groundwater remediation activities after the manufacturing
facility was closed in the mid-1980s, to determine if any
contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater)
from the Site were present in those homes. The test results showed
that three homes had volatile organic compound vapors above NJ
DEP's recommended concentration levels, and the Company installed
vapor mitigation equipment in those homes. On April 15, 2011,
those three homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes,
filed separate suits against the Company seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for their lost property value
and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose
home tested negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a
class action suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 141
other homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the
nature of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to
the Site. The plaintiffs in these cases recently amended their
complaints to assert claims under New Jersey's Environmental
Rights Act for the Company's alleged failure to properly report
its waste discharge practices in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
and for natural resource damages. In late December 2013, the
plaintiffs moved to have a class of 139 homeowners certified, and
the motion was granted in early February 2014. At the same time
the Court also entered partial summary judgment on liability for
the three homes where the Company had installed vapor mitigation
equipment.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Removed "LeCroy" Suit to S.C. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned LeCroy v. CSX
Transportation Inc., Case No. 2014-CP-08-1141, was removed from
the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02128-RMG to the
proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims for personal injury.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Biering, Esq.
          116 S Railroad Ave.
          Moncks Corner, SC 29461
          Telephone: (843) 899-7555
          Facsimile: (843) 899-9015
          E-mail: chris@bieringlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald K. Wray, II, Esq.
          GALLIVAN WHITE AND BOYD
          55 Beattie Place, Suite 1200
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 271-9580
          Facsimile: (864) 271-7502
          E-mail: rwray@gwblawfirm.com


DEAN FOODS: To Seek High Court Review in Milk Purchasers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company intends to file a petition to the U.S. Supreme
Court for review of the decision in a suit over its sale of
processed fluid Grade A milk, according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege
generally that the company, either acting alone or in conjunction
with others in the milk industry who are also defendants in the
retailer action, lessened competition in the Southeastern United
States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail
outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also
artificially inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration, renewed their request for
summary judgment in September 2010. In March 2012, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all
remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants,
including the Company. Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision in
April 2012. Briefing on the appeal was completed in April 2013,
and oral argument occurred in July 2013. In January 2014, the
appeals court reversed the judgment for the defendants, including
the Company, on one of the original five counts in the Tennessee
retailer action. In February 2014, the Company requested that the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider its decision en banc; the
Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The Company intends to file a
petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the case. The
Sixth Circuit returned the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.


DEAN FOODS: Seeks to Dismiss Indirect Milk Purchasers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company is seeking to dismiss the 2013 case filed by
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk in the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the
"indirect purchaser action"). The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve
state law claims. Because the allegations in the indirect
purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the
outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action. On
August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit. On January 17, 2013, these same
plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "2013
indirect purchaser action"). The allegations are similar to those
in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but
involve only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed
a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013. On June 14, 2013, the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the Company's motion to
dismiss and filed an amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing
on the motion to dismiss was completed on August 15, 2013.


DELLA NONA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Workers Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Luna, Luis Naula, Salvador Arrellano, Jose Luna, Arturo
Molina Lopez, Alfonso Ramirez, Andres Reyes Valente, Jose Luis
Martinez, Arturo Torres, Rene Morales, Jorge Rolando Tenesaca,
Gregorio Mejia, Jared Larios, Jose Amaro, Juan Garcia, Liberio
Luis, Mercedes Martinez, Dorly Sanchez, Luis Alvarez, Eduardo
Santiago, Uriel Vidal Sanchez, Manuel Livicura, Gustavo Chavez,
Miguel Angel Leon, Issia Morales, Miguel Mendoza and Victor Rendon
Vasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Della Nona Corp. (d/b/a Bocca), Tuscany on 50th Inc. (d/b/a
Tuscany), E Rae Jo, John Doe, Seth Doe, Yvana Doe, George Doe and
Michael Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-03872-LGS (S.D.N.Y.,
May 30, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are or were employed by the Defendants as food
preparers, cooks, grill workers, cashiers, pasta preparers, and
ostensibly, as delivery workers.  The Plaintiffs allege that they
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked.

The Defendants own, operate and control a restaurant/catering
service located in New York City under the names Bocca and
Tuscany.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Spira" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Spira, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-03496-SJ-JO (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014) accuses the Company
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Seeks Cert. of Tenn. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a shareholder suit against the Board of Directors
of Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. has filed a motion
seeking to certify the case as a class action, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee
(21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors.
This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to
certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic
transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The
complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise
appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed
a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which
was scheduled for hearing on June 2, 2014.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces FLSA Violation Suit in Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. is facing a certified labor
suit in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, according to the company's May
8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In June 2012, a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas against the company and certain of the
company's subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid
overtime wages as well as liquidated damages.  The Court
conditionally certified a nationwide class of all of the Company's
hourly employees.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit by Garland Facility Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed on
behalf of patients of Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints. The lawsuit remains
in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as
a class action.


ECOLAB INC: Expects to Pay Settlement in Labor Suit This June
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the labor suit in Cooper v. Ecolab Inc. is
expected to be paid prior to June 30, 2014, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In the Superior Court-Los Angeles County, case no. BC486875, the
plaintiffs sought certification of a purported class of terminated
California employees of any business for alleged violation of
statutory obligations regarding payment of accrued vacation upon
termination. The company reached a preliminary settlement with the
plaintiffs, which was approved by the court on March 17, 2014. The
settlement amount, which is not material to the company's
operations or financial position, is expected to be paid prior to
June 30, 2014.


ECOLAB INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. continues to face wage hour lawsuits claiming
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The company is a defendant in four other pending wage hour
lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") or a similar state law. Of these four suits, two have
been certified for class action status. Ross (formerly Icard) v.
Ecolab, U.S. District Court -- Northern District of California,
case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an action under California state law, has
been certified for class treatment of California Institutional
employees. In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern
District of California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination
Service Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also
seeks a purported California sub-class for alleged California wage
hour law violations and certifications of classes for state law
violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and North Carolina. A third pending suit, Charlot v.
Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court-Eastern District of New York,
case no. CV 12-04543, seeks nationwide class certification of
Institutional employees for alleged FLSA violations as well as
purported state sub-classes in two states (New York and New
Jersey) alleging violations of state wage hour laws. A fourth
pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, case no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a class of
Institutional employees for alleged violations of Illinois wage
and hour laws.


ECOLAB INC: Nalco Still Faces Suit Related to Deepwater Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nalco Company continues to defend a multi-district litigation over
the use of COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, according to Ecolab Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Nalco Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in six putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill: Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
01051 (E.D. La.); Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production
Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981 (E.D. La.); Harris, et al. v. BP, plc,
et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJBSS (E.D. La.); Irelan v. BP
Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00881 (E.D. La.);
Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-
EMT (N.D. Fla.); and, Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No.
1:10-cv-00397-B (S.D. Ala.). The cases were filed on behalf of
various potential classes of persons who live and work in or
derive income from the effected Coastal region. Each of the
actions contains substantially similar allegations, generally
alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the use of
the company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in these putative class action
lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. These cases
have been consolidated in MDL 2179.


ECOLAB INC: Provides Updates on Claims v. Nalco in MDL 2179
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Ecolab
Inc., provided updates on related claims pending against Nalco
Company in MDL 2179, which relates to the use of COREXIT
dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in 23 complaints filed by individuals: Alexander, et
al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00951
(E.D. La.); Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et
al. Case No. 2:11-cv- 867, (E.D. La.); Brooks v. Tidewater Marine
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00049 (S.D. Tex.); Capt Ander, Inc.
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla.);
Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.); Danos,
et al. v. BP Exploration et al., Case No. 00060449 (25th Judicial
Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); Doom v. BP Exploration &
Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.); Duong, et
al., v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
00605 (E.D. La.); Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW (E.D.
La.); Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00650
(E.D. La.); Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N
(S.D. Ala.); Hogan v. British Petroleum Exploration & Production,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County,
Texas); Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00532-N (S.D.
Ala.); In re of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 12-
426 (E.D. La.); Kolian v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. ,
Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D. La.); Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 1:10-cv-00472-M (S.D. Ala.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Shimer v. BP
Exploration and Production, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-4755 (E.D.
La.); Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C., et al., No. 0165708
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., Case No. 59-121 (25th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); and,
Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR (S.D.
Miss.). The cases were filed on behalf of individuals and entities
that own property, live, and/ or work in or derive income from the
effected Coastal region. Each of the actions contains
substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other
things, negligence relating to the use of the company's COREXIT
dispersant in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Pursuant to orders issued by the court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint"). On May 18, 2012, Nalco
filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the "B3"
Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth
in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii)
Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November
28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and dismissed with
prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint asserted against
Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean
Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the
"B3" Master Complaint remain pending against other defendants, the
Court's decision is not a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs will
have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court's
decision.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April
and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final
orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement;
and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members
agree to release claims against BP and other released parties,
including Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco Holding Company, Nalco
Finance Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings
LLC and Nalco Company.

                    Other Related Actions

In March 2011, Nalco Company was named, along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in an amended complaint filed by an
individual in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi,
Second Judicial District (Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc.,
et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison County,
Mississippi)). The amended complaint generally asserts, among
other things, negligence and strict product liability claims
relating to the plaintiff's alleged exposure to chemical
dispersants manufactured by Nalco Company. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, medical expenses, and attorneys'
fees and costs. Plaintiff's allegations place him within the scope
of the MDL 2179 Medical Benefits Class. In approving the Medical
Benefits Settlement, the MDL 2179 Court barred Medical Benefits
Settlement class members from prosecuting claims of injury from
exposure to oil and dispersants related to the Response. As a
result of the MDL court's order, on April 11, 2013, the
Mississippi court stayed proceedings in the Franks case.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Motion to Junk Pa. Shareholder Suit Heard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state court located in Pittsburgh held a hearing on the
defendants' supplemental motion to dismiss the suit captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al., according to Education Management Corporation's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders
due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of
Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to
admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting
tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency
standards, improper classification of job placement data for
graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S.
Department of Education's financial responsibility standards. The
Company previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff
which were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the
Board of Directors and found to be without merit.

The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the
same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012.
The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the
Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper
recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well-
being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation
Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the
plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to
admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics. The
Special Litigation Committee filed supplemental reports on October
15, 2013, January 9, 2014 and February 28, 2014, finding no
support for the incentive compensation and graduate placement
statistic claims. The Court held a hearing on the defendants'
supplemental motion to dismiss the case on January 29, 2014.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: "Bushansky" Shareholder Litigation Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted a motion by Education Management Corporation to stay the
case Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al., according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against
certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court
in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting,
enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of
the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of
incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company
previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors and found to be without merit. The Company believes that
the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company and the named
director defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending
the resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case on
October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System case.


ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Unlawful Marketing Scheme for of Opana ER
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., Case No. 2:14-
cv-03185 (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2014), seeks treble damages arising
out of the Defendants' unlawful scheme to allocate the market for
extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which the Defendants
sell under the brand name Opana ER.

Endo Health Solutions Inc., is a Delaware corporation located at
Atwater Drive, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Andrew Coyne Curley, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street,
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              acurley@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abba Gordon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03434-JBW-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2014) alleges violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


EPL OIL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Del. Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. faces a consolidated shareholder lawsuit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware over its planned
merger, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "On March 19, 2014, an alleged
stockholder filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of our
stockholders against our Company, our directors, and EXXI, as
defendants. The lawsuit is styled Antonio Lopez v. EPL Oil & Gas,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  On April 14, 2014, another alleged stockholder
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of our stockholders against
our Company, our directors, and EXXI, as defendants. This lawsuit
is styled David Lewandoski v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 9533-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On April 23, 2014, a third alleged stockholder filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of our stockholders against our Company,
our directors, and EXXI, as defendants.  This lawsuit is styled
Roberta Feinstein v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9570-
VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The
foregoing lawsuits were consolidated by the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware on May 5, 2014. The consolidated lawsuit is
styled In re EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol.
C.A. No. 9460-VCN and is referred to herein as the "Delaware
Action."  The Lopez complaint, which was amended on April 15,
2014, was deemed the operative complaint in the Delaware Action."

"Plaintiffs in the Delaware Action allege a variety of causes of
action challenging the Merger, including that (a) our directors
have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger and (b) EXXI has allegedly aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action
are based on allegations that (i) the Merger allegedly provides
inadequate consideration to our stockholders for their shares of
our common stock; (ii) the Merger Agreement contains contractual
terms that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from
making competing offers for shares of our common stock; (iii)
certain of our officers and directors are allegedly receiving
benefits -- including (A) an offer for one of our directors to
join the EXXI board of directors and (B) the triggering of change-
in-control provisions in notes held by our executive officers --
that are not equally shared by our stockholders; (iv) EXXI
required our officers and directors to agree to vote their shares
of our common stock in favor of the Merger; (v) the company
provided, and EXXI obtained, non-public information that allegedly
allowed EXXI to acquire the company for inadequate consideration;
and (vi) the Registration Statement contains inadequate
disclosures regarding the Merger.

"Based on these allegations, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action
seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating
the Merger. To the extent that the Merger is consummated,
plaintiffs seek to have the Merger Agreement rescinded. Plaintiffs
also seek damages and attorneys' fees.
To date, the defendants have not yet answered or filed responsive
motions to the Delaware Action, other than to oppose plaintiffs'
motion to expedite the proceedings."


FANNIE MAE: Approval of Securities Suit Settlement Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an appeal against the final approval of a
settlement reached in In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation is
now fully briefed, according to Federal National Mortgage
Association's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Fannie Mae was a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 that was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia. In the consolidated complaint
filed in 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio alleged that
the company and certain former officers, as well as the company's
former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs contended that Fannie Mae's accounting
statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to
hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts,
and sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs. On January 7, 2008, the court defined the
class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call
options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options
during the period from April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004.
On October 17, 2008, FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae,
intervened in this case. In September and December 2010,
plaintiffs served expert reports claiming damages to plaintiffs
under various scenarios ranging cumulatively from $2.2 billion to
$8.6 billion. In 2011, the parties filed various motions for
summary judgment. On September 20, 2012, the court granted summary
judgment to defendant Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former
Chief Executive Officer, on all claims against him. On October 16,
2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant J. Timothy
Howard, Fannie Mae's former Chief Financial Officer, on all claims
against him. On November 20, 2012, the court granted summary
judgment to defendant Leanne Spencer, Fannie Mae's former
Controller, on all claims against her.

On April 10, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this litigation, subject to court approval. On May 7,
2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the
court. On June 7, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, approved the form and manner of notice to the
class, stayed non-settlement related proceedings, and set certain
other deadlines related to the settlement. On October 31, 2013,
the court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the
settlement to the class, and on December 5, 2013, granted final
approval of the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and
entered an order and judgment effecting the settlement.

Fannie Mae's contribution to the settlement did not have a
material impact on the company's results of operations or
financial condition. On January 9, 2014, Rinis Travel Service,
Inc. Profit Sharing Trust U.A. 61-1989, a purported class member,
appealed the court's approval order with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal
with prejudice on March 13, 2014. On January 29, 2014, an
individual purported class member also appealed the settlement
approval, and plaintiffs-appellees moved to dismiss this appeal on
February 6, 2014. The motion to dismiss the appeal is now fully
briefed.


FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Securities & ERISA Suits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie
Mae ERISA Litigation continue in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to Federal National
Mortgage Association's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in two consolidated class actions filed
in 2008 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York--In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities
Litigation and In re 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation. On February
11, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
that the cases be coordinated for pretrial proceedings. In
addition, two individual securities actions involving related
facts and circumstances--Comprehensive Investment Services v. Mudd
and Smith v. Fannie Mae--were later filed and ultimately
transferred to the same court for coordination with the class
actions.

In addition to these proceedings, certain underwriters have
notified the company that they have been named in various other
actions arising out of certain of Fannie Mae's preferred stock
offerings and may seek indemnification for any losses arising out
of those actions pursuant to the terms of the company's
underwriting agreements with them.


FANNIE MAE: Retirement Systems' Securities Actions Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to face a second
amended joint consolidated class action complaint by lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board and Tennessee Consolidated
Retirement System, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) allege that the company, certain of the company's
former officers, and certain of the company's underwriters
violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Lead plaintiffs also allege that the company, certain of the
company's former officers, and the company's outside auditor,
violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs
seek various forms of relief, including rescission, damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable
and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2009, the court entered an
order allowing the Federal Housing Finance Agency to intervene.

In 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the
partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims
remained pending against the company and certain of the company's
former officers. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated
complaint on December 31, 2010.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action
complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims and
adding Federal Housing Finance Agency as a defendant. On August
30, 2012, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint, allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange
Act claims premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures
to proceed along with plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's
risk management disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the
second amended complaint on October 29, 2012.


FANNIE MAE: Partial Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a motion to reconsider an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss filed by defendants in In re
2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation, according to Federal National
Mortgage Association's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009, plaintiffs allege that
certain of the company's current and former officers and
directors, including members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans
Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of
Directors during the relevant time periods, as fiduciaries of
Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached
their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing
ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer
prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a
class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts
invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other
fees and costs, and injunctive and other equitable relief.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2012 adding two
current Board members and then-CEO Michael J. Williams as
defendants. On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed
with prejudice claims against seven former and current directors
and officers who joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans
Committee after Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship. The
court allowed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to
monitor claims to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict
of interest claim. On September 23, 2013, defendants filed a
motion asking the court to reconsider its October 22, 2012 order
in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's
decision in Rinehart v. Akers (In re Lehman Bros. ERISA
Litigation), 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2013). The court denied the
motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2014.


FANNIE MAE: Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Stock Purchase Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss by defendants in In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations
are now fully briefed, according to Federal National Mortgage
Association's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against the company,
FHFA as the company's conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from
July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or
Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each
company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.
These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013,
plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or
Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the
company, FHFA as the company's conservator, Treasury and Freddie
Mac ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations"). The preferred shareholder
plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments to the terms of
the senior preferred stock purchase agreements providing that
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay dividends equal to their
entire net worth (minus a specified capital reserve amount) ("the
net worth sweep provisions") nullified certain of the
shareholders' rights, particularly the right to receive dividends.
The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012
amendments constituted a taking of their property by requiring
that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are paid to
Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against the company, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against
FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim
derivatively on the company's and Freddie Mac's behalf against
FHFA and Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of
preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie
Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August
2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against the
company, FHFA as the company's conservator, the Director of FHFA
(in his official capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the
Treasury (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs
bring claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the company, FHFA
and Freddie Mac, and claims for violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act against the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging
that the net worth sweep provisions nullified certain rights of
the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive
dividends. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On January 17, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss both the
class action and non-class action suits pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, and these motions are
now fully briefed.


FIFTH THIRD: Visa, Mastercard Antitrust Suit Settlement Disclosed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed the settled consolidated antitrust
class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Inc., in its May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.  Fifth Third said it may have obligations pursuant
to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss
sharing agreements.

During April 2006, Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa, MasterCard and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks
were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as
discussed in Note 14 and has also entered into judgment and loss
sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered
into a settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement
Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a
class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an
additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection
with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the
class action. More than 7,900 merchants have requested exclusion
from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow
account have been returned to the control of the defendants
through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of
the merchants who requested exclusion from the class have filed
separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain
other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. The
federal lawsuits have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp
was not named as a defendant in any of the federal lawsuits, but
may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements
and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements. In addition, one
merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants, including the Bancorp,
alleging similar antitrust violations. On January 14, 2014, the
court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A
number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval.


FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Ruling in ERISA Suits Seen This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, two cases were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio against Fifth Third Bancorp and
certain officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al.
Case No. 1:08-cv-538.  The complaints alleged violations of ERISA.
The ERISA actions were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision.
Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and
reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of
proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On March 25, 2013
the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Solicitor General
to file a brief stating the views of the United States on the
issues raised in the Bancorp petition and this brief was filed on
November 12, 2013. On December 13, 2013 the Supreme Court granted
certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal. Oral argument was held
on April 2, 2014 and a decision is expected in June of 2014,
Bancorp said in its May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.


FIFTH THIRD: Sued Over Inaccessible Facilities for Disabled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 2:14-cv-00715
(W.D. Pa., June 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendant's facilities
are not fully accessible to, and independently usable by
individuals with mobility disabilities, as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fifth Third Bank is a bank headquartered at 38 Fountain Square
Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45263.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Suit Related to Overdraft Fees Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, is
proceeding before the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee,
Case No. CT-004085-11, according to First Horizon National
Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

FTBNA is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning
overdraft fees charged in connection with debit card transactions.
A key claim is that the method used to order or sequence the
transactions posted each day was improper. The case is styled as
Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the
Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11.
The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million,
unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive
damages, among other things. FHN's estimate of reasonably possible
loss for this matter is subject to significant uncertainties
regarding: whether a class will be certified and, if so, the
definition of the class; claims as to which no dollar amount is
specified; the potential remedies that might be available or
awarded; the ultimate outcome of potentially dispositive early-
stage motions such as motions to dismiss; and the incomplete
status of the discovery process.


G2 SECURE: Removed "Marshall" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Marshall v. G2 Secure
Staff, L.L.C., et al., Case No. BC541579, was removed from the
Superior Court of the state of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04322 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges seven causes of action,
including claims for the alleged failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages due to unlawful rounding practices, and the alleged
failure to provide meal and rest periods in accordance with
California law.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Christian J. Keeney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Suite 1500
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com
                  christian.keeney@ogletreedeakins.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Concealed Switch Defects, "Smith" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Motors, LLC, General Motors Holding, LLC,
General Motors Corporation, Delphi Automotive PLC, and DPH-DAS,
LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00120
(N.D. Miss., June 4, 2014), arises from the alleged failure to
disclose and to affirmatively conceal a switch defect in General
Motor's vehicles.

General Motors, LLC, was a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The Corporation through its
various entities designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and
sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in
Mississippi and multiple other locations in the United States and
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Don Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927,
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-9168
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com


GENERAL MOTORS: 2004 Crash Victims File Suit to Reopen Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, Ankit Ajmera and Tanvi Mehta, writing for Reuters,
report that victims of the crash of a Saturn Ion in 2004 have
filed a lawsuit against General Motors Co. to reopen a settlement
and accusing the automaker of fraud.

Candice Anderson, 21, the driver of the Saturn Ion, was
negotiating a curve in the road in Texas when the car went off the
road and hit a tree.  Ms. Anderson suffered multiple injuries
while her co-passenger and boyfriend, Mikale Erickson, 25, died.

Mr. Erickson's family and Ms. Anderson sued the company in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 9
alleging the that the automaker "watched silently" as Anderson was
indicted and prosecuted for a felony offense, despite knowing all
along that the defective vehicle was at fault.

"GM placed 100 percent of the blame on a 21-year-old innocent girl
and ended up paying $75,000 to settle the entire case," attorney
Robert Hilliard of law firm Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, representing
Erickson's family and Anderson, said in a statement.

This year GM has recalled 2.6 million older model cars, including
Chevy Cobalts and Saturn Ions, to replace defective switches that
can cause engines to shut off while driving, leading to a sudden
loss of power steering, power brakes and failure of air bags to
deploy in a crash.

The company recently dismissed 15 employees, including several
high-ranking executives, for their roles in matters relating to
faulty ignition switches in older GM cars.

General Motors declined to comment.

The law firm is also representing the families of Amy Radermaker,
Seyde Chansuthus and Amber Marie Rose, victims in other accidents
linked to faulty GM ignition switches.

The case is Anderson v. General Motors, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, No. 14-538.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ousts Two Product Litigation Attorneys
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman, writing for Reuters, reports that two product
litigation attorneys and a quality control executive are among the
15 employees who have been forced out by General Motors Co. over
the company's poor handling of a defective ignition switch linked
to at least 13 deaths, according to two people familiar with the
decisions.

Attorneys Jaclyn Palmer and Ronald Porter, who had settled several
of the cases involving Chevrolet Cobalt cars involved in accidents
where the air bags did not deploy, are no longer at GM, said the
sources, who asked not to be identified discussing names the
company has not public disclosed.  Director of Field Performance
Evaluation Maureen Foley-Gardner, also was pushed out.

None of the three employees identified by Reuters on June 9 could
be reached on their personal phones for comment.  Their names were
no longer recognized at the main GM switch board.  GM declined to
comment.

GM has said that 15 employees are "no longer" with the company due
to their handling of the switch recall. GM announced the
departures along with the results of an internal probe last week,
and Reuters has now identified a total of 11 of the 15, mostly
lower level employees.

GM earlier this month said it fired two engineers who had been on
paid leave and sources identified six other executives forced out.
The most senior identified by Reuters is Michael Robinson, the
former North American general counsel who later became vice
president for environmental, sustainability and regulatory
affairs.  The GM report particularly blamed the legal team for
failing to act on signs of a safety issue, although General
Counsel Michael Millikin kept his job.  Three attorneys have left,
in addition to Robinson and the two identified on June 9, taking
the total to six.

Ms. Foley-Gardner's exit has not been reported, while other media
have identified Ms. Palmer and Mr. Porter as two of the 15 no
longer with GM.

CEO Mary Barra said that, of the 15, "some were removed because of
what we consider misconduct or incompetence.  Others have been
relieved because they simply didn't do enough: They didn't take
responsibility (and) didn't act with any sense of urgency" to
investigate causes of fatal crashes and inform senior management.

The defective switch can disable air bags, making crashes much
more dangerous.

Ms. Palmer first learned of an issue involving nondeployment of
air bags in a Cobalt in November 2006, and over the next several
years handled or was told of several cases involving the same
issue, according to the company's internal report released last
week.

In a January 2011 meeting where company attorneys reviewed
potential legal settlements, Ms. Palmer discussed company
investigators' theory that airbag nondeployment might be related
to the ignition switch, according to the GM report.  The meeting
was attended by at least three other attorneys, including
Mr. Porter, who also were forced out.

The particular case from the January meeting was settled shortly
after, but later that month, another executive asked Palmer for a
meeting to discuss the Cobalt issues.  It took several months for
that meeting to convene, according to the internal report, which
frequently criticized a lack of urgency at GM.

Mr. Porter also was involved or familiar with several cases
involving Cobalts in accidents where air bags did not deploy,
including one in which plaintiff's lawyers showed that GM had
changed the switch design without changing the part number.  That
explained a key question for GM engineers investigating the issue,
but the report noted that it still took months to initiate the
recall.

Ms. Foley-Gardner was a member of a high-level executive committee
charged in December 2013 with investigating whether a recall of
the Cobalt was necessary, according to the report, which noted
that it took until February to initiate a recall.  At least three
other executives who have been forced out were on the committee.


GLOBAL OFFSHORE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrod Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Global Offshore Resources, LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-01094 (W.D.
La., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed to Global Offshore's hourly workers.

Global Offshore is a staffing company focused on providing
personnel to the oil industry. It is a corporation with its
principal office in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick Glenn Earles, Esq.
      Laborde Law Firm (MKSV)
      309 N Washington St
      Marksville, LA 71351
      Telephone: (318) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (318) 253-7757
      E-mail: digger@labordelawfirm.com


GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: "Teal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Teal, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Global Technologies I, LLC an Illinois Limited Liability
Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-01298 (M.D. Fla., June 2, 2014),
brings this action for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Global Technologies I, LLC, supplies cell phones, cell tower
equipment and tools, and other goods and materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Faces "Teets" Suit Over Retirement Plan Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Teets v. Great-west Life & Annuity Insurance Company, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01360 (E.D. Cal., June 4, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant sets its own compensation as a service provider to
retirement plans, and collects unreasonable and excessive fees
from retirement plan investors.

Great-west Life & Annuity Insurance Company is a retirement plan
provider headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nina R. Wasow, Esq.
     LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKE AND JACKSON P.C.
     476-9th Street, Suite 1800,
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Telephone: (510) 839-6824
     Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
     E-mail: nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com


HAO KE LAI ENTERPRISE: Chan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ka Foo Chan,on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v.
Hao Ke Lai Enterprise Corporation, and Qian Wei Lin, Case No.
1:14-cv-03509 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover from
Defendants, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Hao Ke Lai Enterprise Corporation, is a New York corporation
located at 750 N. Country Road, East Setauket, New York 11733.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Fl.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)465-1188
      Facsimile: (212)465-1181


INFOBLOX INC: Faces "Beqaj" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Safedin Beqaj, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Infoblox Inc., Robert D. Thomas, and Remo E. Canessa,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02564 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2014), arises from the
alleged false and misleading statements made by the Defendants, as
well as failure to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Infoblox Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 3111 Coronado Drive, Santa Clara,
California 95054. It provides a broad family of enterprise and
service provider-class solutions to automate management of the
critical network infrastructure services needed for secure,
scalable and fault-tolerant connections between applications,
devices and users.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


INNOVATIVE EMERGENCY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dinesheia West, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. Innovative Emergency Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-04014 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, damages for breach of contract, and statutory
penalties for the Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers,

Innovative Emergency Management, Inc., works with government
agencies and private sector organizations around the world to
improve protection and security for lives and infrastructure, and
to help states, regions, and communities recover from disasters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      FTTAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


JACOBY & MEYERS: Sued for Alleged Overcharging of Service Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Harding, On Behalf Of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP,
Total Trial Solutions, LLC, Andrew Finkelstein and Kenneth Oliver,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03932 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for the alleged unlawful actions of
charging the Plaintiff beyond the scope of what the retainer
advised the client that the Defendants would be retained to do.

Jacoby & Meyers and Finkelstein are sister law firms.

Total Trial Solutions is a consulting and production company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee Squitieri, Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor,
      New York, New York 10022
      Telephone: (212)421-6492


JT WALTERS: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Elenowitz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JT Walters a/k/a Walters Consulting, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04032 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
specifically for transmitting one or more facsimiles advertising
the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or
services, without having obtained prior express invitation or
permission to transmit said facsimiles.

JT Walters a/k/a Walters Consulting provides accounting, tax and
financial advisory services in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      1200 Avenue ofthe Americas, 3rd Floor
      New York, NY10036
      Telephone: (212) 354-0030
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

           - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
      369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysfbrconsumers.com


KEURIG GREEN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Beverage Cartridges
-------------------------------------------------------
Ultra Home Set LLC d/b/a Ultra Service Sales, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc. f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04019 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover
damages due to the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the
market for beverage cartridges compatible with its single-serve
brewers.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., formerly known as Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Waterbury, Vermont.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C. Street NE,
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: 202-789-3960
      Facsimile: 202-789-1813
      E-mail: joel@cuneolaw.com
              jonc@cuneolaw.com

           - and -

      Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
      Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM,
      20 Rahling Circle, PO Box 241790,
      Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
      Telephone: 501-821-5575
      Facsimile: 501-821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
              debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us


KORYEO INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Beliard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Koryeo International Corp., and Steve Hong, in his
professional and individual capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03495
(E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Koryeo International Corp., is a New York corporation located at
200 Stewart Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11237. It operates a
seafood packaging and distribution business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley Lee Wilson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328,
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: blw@employmentlawyernewyork.com


LA FE FOODS: Faces "Jaliper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jaliper and Yadil Toledo, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by La Fe Foods
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by La Fe
Foods v. La Fe Foods and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by La Fe Foods, Case No. 2:14-cv-03489 (D.N.J., June 2,
2014), seeks to recover earned but unpaid overtime compensation
owed to the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class for work
they performed while employed by Defendants.

La Fe Foods is a New Jersey corporation located at 230 Moonachie,
New Jersey 07074-1831, and is engaged in the grocery operations
business in the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      BARNES, IACCARINO, VIRGINIA, AMBINDER & SHEPHERD, PLLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 403,
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net


LAVANDERIA EXPRESS: Faces "Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ulio Rios, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class v. Lavanderia Express Corp. et al., Jose Almonte and Marina
Rivera, Case No. 1:14-cv-03507 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2014), to
recover from the Defendants, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages
and  attorneys' fees and costs.

Lavanderia Express Corp., operates a number of laundromats under
the trade name "Lavanderia Express".  The laundromat enterprise is
comprised of nine corporations operating Lavanderia Express
Laundromats throughout New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Fl.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1888
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


M L RESTAURANT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Ramirez, Javier Guerrero, Geronimo Herculano, Pablo Rutilio,
Maggie Andres Crecencio, Guillermo Alvarez, Juan Cruz Hernandez,
Leonidas Mateo, Anyeli Ovalles Hernandez, Mima Reyes Martinez,
Ramon Rosario and Omar Taveras, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. M L Restaurant, Corp., d/b/a Liberato
Restaurant, M.L. San Jose Enterprises, Corp., d/b/a Liberato
Restaurant, Antonio Manuel Liberato, Nelson Gomez. Lucy Gomez, and
Nana (LNU), jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04030
(S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, unlawfully withheld tips, and statutory penalties
for notice-and-recordkeeping violations for the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated.

M L Restaurant, Corp., and M.L. San Jose Enterprises, Corp., are
New York Corporations doing business as Liberato Restaurant with
two locations in the Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne E. Mirer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JEANNE E. MIRER,
      1700 Broadway, 21st floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212)231-2235
      E-mail: Jeanne@jmirerlaw.com


M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. Districts
Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR) will proceed
with discovery after the U.S. Districts Court for the District of
Delaware issued an order denying a motion to dismiss the suit,
according to M&T Bank Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's
financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of
securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust
moved to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the Court granted Wilmington
Trust's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but allowed plaintiffs
to re-file their Complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Complaint and a Third Amended Complaint. On June 11, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a motion to serve a Fourth Amended Complaint,
which was granted, and the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed. On
July 17, 2013, Wilmington Trust filed a motion to dismiss the
Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court issued an order denying
Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The case
will proceed with discovery.


MATISS INC: Accused of Sending Junk Faxes Without Prior Consent
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSP Maintenance Supply, LLC on behalf of themselves and all other
individuals and companies similarly situated v. Matiss, Inc.
(d/b/a City Window Fashions, Window World Shop); Mihaela Cuceu
a/k/a Mihaela Kalnins Cuceu; John Does 1-20; and ABC Corps. 1-20,
Case No. 2:14-cv-03498-KM-MAH (D.N.J., June 2, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of sending facsimile advertisement to the Plaintiff and
the putative class members without obtaining their prior express
invitation or permission.

The Junk Faxes received by the Plaintiff are marketing materials
for the Defendants, advertising the commercial availability of
their goods and services, which include various blinds, shades,
and other window treatment products.

Matiss, Inc., doing business as Window Fashions, Window World
Shop, is a New Jersey domestic corporation with its principal
place of business located in Hoboken, New Jersey.  The Company
markets its products and services on the Internet to consumers in
all jurisdictions in the United States, particularly throughout
New Jersey and New York.  Mihaela Cuceu, also known as Mihaela
Kalnins Cuceu, is the principal and owner of Matiss, Inc.  The Doe
and ABC Defendants are currently unknown entities or individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          David M. Freeman, Esq.
          Adam M. Epstein, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net
                  dfreeman@mskf.net


MCWANE INC: Manipulates Prices of Iron Pipe Fittings, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TC Construction Co. Inc., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. McWane, Inc.; Star Pipe Products
Ltd.; and Sigma Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-03454 (D.N.J., May 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for the alleged unlawful
practice of raising and fixing prices for ductile iron pipe
fittings sold throughout the United States.

McWane, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 2900 Highway
280, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35223. It imports, markets,
and sells Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings in all 50 states, primarily
through its Tyler Union and Clow Water Systems Company divisions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
      SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200,
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
      Telephone: (856) 482-5222
      Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
      E-mail: ljrodriguez@schnader.com


MERCK & CO: Settlement in Vioxx Product Liability Suits Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
approved a $23 million settlement reached in the Vioxx Litigation,
according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Merck is a defendant in approximately 90 federal and state
lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging
personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or
use of Vioxx. Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of all
remaining federal court putative class actions that were brought
on behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking
reimbursement for alleged economic loss.

Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all
properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs
and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an
order approving the settlement on January 6, 2014. The deadline
for members to submit claims under the settlement was May 6, 2014.

Merck also settled a Missouri state court class action of
plaintiffs who sought reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs
relating to Vioxx. The Company established a reserve of $39
million in 2012 in connection with that settlement agreement,
which is the minimum amount that the Company is required to pay
under the agreement. The settlement was approved, and final
judgment in the action has been entered. The court-approved
process for class members to submit claims under the settlement
closed in October 2013.

In Indiana, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of
Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit
Court of Marion County, Indiana. That case has been dormant for
several years.

Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys
General of four states -- Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and Utah.
All of these actions are pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding.

These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of
Vioxx. These suits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by
government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or
penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. In November
2013, the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky approved a
settlement in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General,
under which Merck agreed to pay Kentucky $25 million to resolve
its lawsuit and the related appeals.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Now Closed in Vioxx Securities Litigations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed and is now closed in the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various
putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal
securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and
various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August
2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's
motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims
based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of
Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011,
defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In
April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and,
in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion. In March 2013,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to
add certain allegations to expand the class period. In May 2013,
the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their
complaint to expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs'
leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations within
the existing class period. In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their
Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. In July 2013, defendants
answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery has
been completed and is now closed. Under the court's scheduling
order, dispositive motions have been fully briefed.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.
Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC
Lawsuit") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several
foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In January 2012, defendants
filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the
"ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed
in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and
denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other
things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed
as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full.
In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all
individual actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day,
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on
statute of limitations grounds. In December 2012, Judge Chesler
denied the motion to dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013,
defendants answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery
has been completed and is now closed. Under the court's scheduling
order, dispositive motions have been fully briefed. In March 2014,
two additional individual securities complaints were filed by
institutional investors that opted out of the class action. The
new complaints are substantially similar to the complaints in the
other individual securities lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Formalizes Settlement in Fosamax ONJ MDL
----------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the
Fosamax osteonecrosis of the jaw multi-district litigation
formalized a Master Settlement Agreement in April 2014, according
to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of March
31, 2014, approximately 5,580 cases, which include approximately
5,850 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending against
Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which
seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or
medical monitoring. In approximately 1,150 of these actions,
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered
osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive
dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants
and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In
addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,430 of these actions
generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other
bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of
Fosamax.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million,
which the Company recorded as a liability in the fourth quarter of
2013. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement that was executed in
April 2014. All of plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company
that they intend to participate in the settlement plan. As a
condition to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ
plaintiffs must also agree to participate in the settlement plan.
Merck has exercised its right to extend the deadline for
plaintiffs to agree to participate to May 15, 2014. If 100%
participation is not achieved, Merck has 45 days from the final
date to determine whether it will terminate the agreement, or
waive the 100% participation requirement and agree to a lesser
funding amount for the settlement fund. Merck has also settled the
four ONJ cases on appeal for approximately $3.5 million in the
aggregate. These settlements have no effect on the cases alleging
Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Stays ENHANCE Securities "Opt-Out" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed all
ENHANCE securities "opt-out" cases against Merck & Co., Inc.
pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi v. Indymac MBS Inc. et al.,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On November 14, 2013, two complaints were filed in the District of
New Jersey against Merck as successor to Schering-Plough, and
other defendants, by certain institutional investors who "opted-
out" of the previously-disclosed and now settled ENHANCE
securities class action against Schering-Plough. In addition, on
January 14, 2014, two complaints were filed in the District of New
Jersey against Merck and other defendants by certain institutional
investors who "opted-out" of the similar Vytorin/Zetia securities
class action against Merck. The "opt-out" complaints contain
allegations similar to those made by plaintiffs in the settled
class actions against Schering-Plough and Merck. On March 27,
2014, the court stayed all four "opt-out" cases pending a decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Public Employees' Retirement System
of Mississippi v. Indymac MBS Inc. et al. The Company intends to
move to dismiss these complaints and otherwise to defend itself in
the litigation.


MINORITY MOBILE: Removed "Solar" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Solar, et al. v. Minority
Mobile System, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-11920 CA 01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22028-MGC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
over labor-related issues.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jenna Nicole Kochen, Esq.
          Rodolfo Gomez, Esq.
          ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442-1578
          E-mail: jkochen@anblaw.com
                  rgomez@anblaw.com


NBT BANK: Faces "Berthelson" Suit Over Foreclosure Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Berthelson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. NBT Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-00938
(M.D. Pa., May 13, 2014), is a class action that seeks monetary
relief to redress a lender's pattern and practice of failing to
provide the mandatory disclosures to the Uniform Commercial Code
specifically by repossessing the Plaintiff's vehicle as a result
of the alleged default under the contract and demanding payment
for the purported deficiency.

NBT Bank, N.A, is a subsidiary of NBT Bancorp Inc., located at 52
South Broad Street, Norwich, NY 13815.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Shenkan, Esq.
      SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
      P.O. Box 7255
      New Castle, PA 16107
      Telephone: (800) 601-0808
      E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


NL INDUSTRIES: New Cert. Motion Filed in Lewis v. Lead Industries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Lewis, et al v. Lead Industries Association, et al
(Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division, Case No. 00CH09800) filed a new class
certification motion in March 2014, according to NL Industries,
Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.


OAKLEY INC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, "Cohen" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Scott Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Oakley, Inc., a Washington Corporation; DOES 1-10,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04310 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for negligently, and willfully contacting
the Plaintiff through SMS or "text" messages on the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Oakley, Inc., is a Washington Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
      LINDEMANN LAW FIRM
      433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 279-5269
      Facsimile: (310) 300-0267
      E-mail: blake@lawbl.com


PACKAGING CORP: Sept. 4 Final Hearing to Approve Kleen Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing for a $17.6 million settlement of the
suit Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America et al. is
scheduled for September 4, 2014, according to PCA's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

During 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard
producers were named as defendants in five purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman
Act. The lawsuits were consolidated in a single complaint under
the caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period of August 2005
to October 2010 (the time of filing of the complaint). The
complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of all
purchasers of containerboard products during such period. On April
4, 2014, the company reached an agreement with the representatives
of the class to settle this lawsuit for $17.6 million and the
company recorded a $17.6 million liability for the settlement in
"Accrued liabilities" on our March 31, 2014, Consolidated Balance
Sheet. On May 6, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Notice of the proposed settlement will be mailed to
potential class members on or before June 20, 2014. A final
approval hearing is scheduled for September 4, 2014.


PFIZER INC: Securities, Derivative, ERISA MDL Continues in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Multi-District Litigation In re Pfizer Inc. Securities,
Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688 continues in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30,
2014.

Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed
in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain
current and former officers of Pfizer violated federal securities
laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June
2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer
Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a
class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer
stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005.


PFIZER INC: Still Faces Securities Litigation in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to face a certified securities class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Pfizer and several of the company's current and former officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false
statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail
to disclose material information, concerning the alleged off-label
promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to
physicians to promote the sale of those products and government
investigations related thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount. In March 2012, the court certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the
U.S. or on U.S. stock exchanges between January 19, 2006 and
January 23, 2009 and were damaged as a result of the decline in
the price of Pfizer common stock allegedly attributable to the
claimed violations.


PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Faces Suit Over Effexor XR in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth and affiliates of Pfizer Inc. continue to face a
consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in relation to Effexor XR, according Pfizer's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing
certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation
settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect
to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for
itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative
class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.


PFIZER INC: Settles 3rd-Party Payer Suit Over Neurontin for $325M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the
third-party payer purported class action over Neurontin as well as
the pending individual actions by third-party payers, for an
aggregate of $325 million, according to the company's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been
filed against the company in various federal and state courts
alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin.
The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent
nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons,
including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and
other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications
other than those included in the product labeling approved by the
FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts,
including individual actions as well as purported class actions,
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales
Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of
all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for
off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions
by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers
and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the
District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer
proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the
District Court for further consideration, including
reconsideration of class certification.

In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's
petition for certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's
decision reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer
purported class action. In April 2014, the company and the
attorneys for the proposed class representatives and for the
plaintiffs in various individual actions entered into an
agreement-in-principle to settle the third-party payer purported
class action, subject to court approval, as well as the pending
individual actions by third-party payers, for an aggregate of $325
million. As part of that settlement, the company also is in the
process of seeking to resolve the pending consumer actions related
to Neurontin, including the purported statewide consumer class
actions in California and Illinois.


PFIZER INC: Settles Neurontin Antitrust Lawsuit for $190MM
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479
entered into an agreement to settle this action for $190 million,
subject to court approval, according to Pfizer Inc.'s May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidates four actions, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a
nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who
purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during
the period from December 11, 2002 to August 31, 2008 and who also
purchased generic gabapentin after it became available. The
complaints allege that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act that
included, among other things, submitting patents for listing in
the Orange Book and prosecuting and enforcing certain patents
relating to Neurontin, as well as engaging in off-label marketing
of Neurontin. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages on behalf of
the class, which may be subject to trebling. In April 2014, the
parties entered into an agreement to settle this action for $190
million, subject to court approval. In addition, Pfizer and
Warner-Lambert are defendants in two actions pending in the
District of New Jersey, which were brought by certain direct
purchasers who had opted out of the certified class, that assert
allegations substantially similar to those in the class action.


PFIZER INC: Lipitor Antitrust Lawsuit in Pre-trial Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332 is in pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against Pfizer,
certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, among others. The plaintiffs in these various actions
seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes
consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased,
indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any
of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The
plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled
certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted
Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various
markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the
actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for
Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price
overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic
Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions
have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their
affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for
the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims
asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions.
These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor
Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In November 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss all of the
foregoing actions. In September 2013, the court dismissed the
claims by direct purchasers that relate to the procurement and/or
enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. In addition, the court
limited the timeframe for which direct purchasers may pursue their
remaining damage claims to the period from June 2011 to November
2011. In October 2013, all of the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs, except for certain individual plaintiffs, filed
amended complaints. In November 2013, the defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the
State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought
in the purported class actions.


PFIZER INC: Suits Over Champix Stayed in Favor of Ontario Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, which were
filed on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in
Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed
patients for the purchase of Champix have been stayed in favor of
the Ontario action, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto
Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary,
and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on
behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who
have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under
Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the
safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative
class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. In June
2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario
proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of
the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix
during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who
experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric
adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims
in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the
result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all
health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of
Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc.
only and ruled that the action against Pfizer Inc. should be
stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the
class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia
have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is
proceeding on a national basis.


PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Stock Suit Over Bapineuzumab Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey of a securities suit against Pfizer Inc. is being appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to
the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as
successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth. The
complaint alleges that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007 through July 2008
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the
putative class. In February 2012, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the
court granted the plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint.
In April 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.


PFIZER INC: Inks Settlement of Ill. Suit Over Co-Pay Programs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. reached a settlement in a suit filed on behalf of all
entities in the U.S. and its territories that have reimbursed
patients for the purchase of certain Pfizer drugs for which co-pay
programs exist or have existed, according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In July 2012, a purported class action was filed against Pfizer in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In
December 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all entities
in the U.S. and its territories that have reimbursed patients for
the purchase of certain Pfizer drugs for which co-pay programs
exist or have existed. The plaintiffs alleged that these programs
violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act by providing an incentive for patients to
use certain Pfizer drugs rather than less-expensive competitor
products, thereby increasing the payers' reimbursement costs. The
plaintiffs also alleged that these programs constituted tortuous
interference with contract. In April 2014, this action was settled
on terms that are not material to Pfizer.


PREMIUM ROOFING: Suit Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSP Maintenance Supply, LLC on behalf of themselves and all other
individuals and companies similarly situated v. Premium Roofing,
LLC; Nicky D. Mitlo; John Does 1-20; and ABC Corps. 1-20; Case No.
2:14-cv-03543-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., June 3, 2014) challenges the
Defendants' alleged policy and practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles to fax machines throughout the United States, even when
they know or should know that they did not have the recipient's
permission to receive advertising from them and had no procedures
in place to retain recipient permission required by state and
federal law.

Premium Roofing, LLC, is a New Jersey domestic limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in Elizabeth,
New Jersey.  The Company markets its products and services on the
Internet to consumers in all jurisdictions in the United States.
Nicky D. Mitlo is the principal and owner of Premium Roofing.  The
Doe and ABC Defendants are currently unknown entities or
individuals that may be responsible for the improper activities of
Premium Roofing.  The Defendants were engaged in the business of
providing commercial and industrial roofing services to consumers
throughout the United States, including New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          David M. Freeman, Esq.
          Adam M. Epstein, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net
                  dfreeman@mskf.net


S&S CENTRE: Faces "Witt" Action in Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Witt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. S&S Centre, Inc., d/b/a Solar Planet, Case No. 2:14-
cv-04321 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2014), negligently and intentionally
contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

S&S Centre, Inc., is a tanning salon with seven locations in
Virginia, Maryland, and the Washington D.C. metro area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1,
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
             jason@kazlg.com

          - and -

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE AND SWIGART
     2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN
     324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725,
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (877) 206-4741
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


S&S CENTRE: Sued in C.D. Calif. Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Steven Witt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. S&S Centre, Inc., d/b/a Solar Planet, Case No. 8:14-
cv-00865-AG-AN (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2014) alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


SONCO TRUCKING: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Albert Gomez, and others similarly situated v. Sonco Trucking &
Backhoe Service, L.L.C., and Andres Lopez, Jr., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00239 (S.D. Tex., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sonco Trucking & Backhoe Service, L.L.C., is a Texas corporation
and maintains an office in Alice, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio St
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com


SPECIALIZED AUTOMATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hamaker, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Specialized Automation Services, LLC., Case No. 1:14-
cv-01575 (D. Colo., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover wages that
Defendant failed to pay in violation of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specialized Automation Services, LLC, is a Colorado corporation
and is engaged in the business of providing electrical and
instrumentation services to the energy industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Henry Azbell, Esq.
      AZBELL & GROVES, LLC
      619 Main Street
      Grand Junction, CO 81501
      Telephone: (970) 241-7701
      Facsimile: (970) 256-9570
      E-mail: jazbelllaw@gmail.com


STEVENS COMMERCIAL: Sends Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSP Maintenance Supply, LLC on behalf of themselves and all other
individuals and companies similarly situated v. Stevens Commercial
Roofing, LLC; R Stevens Commercial Roofing, Inc.; Robert Stevens;
John Does 1-20; and ABC Corps. 1-20, Case No. 2:14-cv-03570
(D.N.J., June 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
sending unsolicited facsimiles to fax machines throughout the
United States, even when it knows or should know that it did not
have the recipient's permission to receive advertising from
Defendants and had no procedures in place to retain recipient
permission required by state and federal law.

Stevens Commercial Roofing, LLC, is a New Jersey domestic
corporation which markets its products and services on the
internet to consumers in all jurisdictions in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
     MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 228-9898
     E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Approval of Securities Suit Accord Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs in the securities action against Synovus
Financial Corp. filed a motion with the United States District
Court, Northern District of Georgia for preliminary approval of a
$11.8 million settlement, which motion remains pending, according
to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended
complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled
that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a
further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their second
amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the
Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss.
On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that
the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26,
2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second
amended complaint on May 21, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Court
granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May
23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants
permission to appeal the District Court's certification of the
class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants
reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class
Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall
cause to be paid $11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the
"Securities Class Action Settlement Payment") in exchange for
broad releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class
Action and other material and customary terms and conditions. On
March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the
District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class
Action Settlement Payment, which motion remains pending.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Checking Account Overdraft Suit in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., which
was transferred to In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
MDL No. 2036, is currently in discovery, according to Synovus
Financial Corp.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and CB&T were named
as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to
the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to
customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et
al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by
plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft
charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller
machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post
payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the
Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the
Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on
October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the
court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but
granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed
their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The
case is currently in discovery.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Griner Overdraft Suit Accord Up for Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Bank is awaiting final approval by the Gwinnett County
State Court (State of Georgia) of a settlement reached in the suit
Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al., according to Synovus
Financial Corp.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Synovus Bank was also named as a defendant in a putative state-
wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft
fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus
Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts ("the Griner Overdraft Litigation"). Plaintiffs contend
that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore
subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such
overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under
both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia
usury limits. On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand
the case to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court
entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to
the Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered
an order denying the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the
state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review
thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of
Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to
dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for
interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April
3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's
application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order
denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012,
Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were heard
in the case on September 19, 2012. On March 28, 2013, the Georgia
Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the denial of Synovus
Bank's motion to dismiss and remanding the case back to the State
Court of Gwinnett County for further proceedings. On April 8,
2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion requesting that the Court of
Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013 order. On April 11, 2013,
the Court of Appeals entered an order denying Synovus Bank's
motion for reconsideration. On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed
a notice of its intent to petition the Supreme Court of Georgia
for a writ of certiorari. On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia.
On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted
certiorari and vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia
Court of Appeals instanter with direction that the Court of
Appeals remand the case to the trial court for further
consideration in light of the effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013
Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and
Finance, which declares that to provide parity with national
banks, overdraft fees imposed by state-chartered banks in
connection with deposit accounts are not subject to Georgia's
usury laws. The trial court held a hearing for consideration of
this issue on November 21, 2013, and a decision is pending.

On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement (the "Griner Settlement") by and among Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein
as "Synovus"), and the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft
Litigation. Under the terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has
agreed to (1) establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims
and (2) pay an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the
plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each
purported class member in the Griner Overdraft Litigation will
give Synovus a full and final general release of all claims
alleged or that could be alleged in the Griner Overdraft
Litigation. The final fairness hearing on the settlement is
scheduled for May 20, 2014.


TELEXFREE LLC: Ferguson et al. Suit Alleges Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., Kingsley Igboanugo, Bernadette Igboanugo,
Okoji Ndukwe Bose Ndukwe, Suru Iyesi, Hannah Ngugi, Ruby G.
Walker, Uduka Okoafor, Eberechukwu Nwobodo, Chima Irechukwu,
Samuel Elekwachi, Violet Smart, Emeka Nwokoro, Nmah Abbah, John
Nkata, Uchechukwu Okam, Veronica Saccoh, Stanley Onyeabo, Ezinne
P. Onyegbule, Anthonia A. Ochije, Chinedu Chidebe, Ojebe Ifegwu,
Lucky Imafidon, Alice Mbuthia, John Kalu v. TelexElectric, LLLP,
et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00316-D (E.D.N.C., June 2, 2014) seeks
compensation for economic loss sustained as a result of the
Defendants' conduct in carrying out an alleged unlawful Ponzi
pyramid scheme and unregistered offer and sale of securities.

TelexFree, Inc., formerly known as Common Cents Communications,
Inc., TelexFree, LLC, TelexFree Financial, Inc., TelexElectric,
LLLP, and Telex Mobile, Holdings, Inc., uniformly held itself out
as a "multi-level marketing" company.  TelexFree systematically
sold through so-called "Promoters."

The Plaintiffs contend that TelexFree sold unregistered securities
to them and to the members of the proposed class in 21 U.S. states
and internationally.  TelexFree's unregistered securities were
identified as "memberships."

The Defendants are TelexElectric, LLLP; Telex Mobile, Holdings,
Inc.; James M. Merrill; Carlos N. Wanzeler; ; Steven M. Labriola;
Joseph H. Craft, a/k/a Joe H. Craft; Craft Financial Solutions,
LLC; Carlos Costa; Santiago De La Rosa; Randy N. Crosby; Faith R.
Sloan; Gerald P. Nehra, individually and doing business as Law
Offices of Nerha and Waak; Gerald P. Nehra Attorney at Law, PLLC;
Richard W. Waak, individually and doing business as Law Offices of
Nerha and Waak; Richard W. Waak, Attorney at Law, PLLC; Bank of
America Corporation, Bank of America, NA; TD Bank, NA; Citizens
Financial Group, Inc.; Citizens Bank of Massachusetts; Fidelity
Co-Operative Bank, doing business as Fidelity Bank; Middlesex
Savings Bank; Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, NA; FMR,
LLC, also known as Fidelity Investments; Waddell & Reed Financial,
Inc.; Waddell & Reed, Inc.; Global Payroll Gateway Inc.;
International Payout Systems, Inc.; Propay, Inc., doing business
as Propay.Com; Base Commerce, LLC, doing business as Phoenix
Payments; Vantage Payments, LLC; Doe Insider Promoters; Doe
Professional Services Providers; Doe Banks; Doe Investment
Services Providers; Doe Payment Processors; and Paralegal Doe.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ihuoma Igboanugo, Esq.
          THE CRESCENT LAW PRACTICE
          183 Wind Chime Court, Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 341-9707
          Facsimile: (919) 457-1256
          E-mail: Ihuoma2007@yahoo.com


TIMMONS CONCRETE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Wilkes, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Timmons Concrete, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Charles
Timmons, individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-00643 (M.D. Fla., June 4,
2014), brings this action for unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Timmons Concrete, Inc., is a Florida corporation that is located
in Lake City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Settlement of Overdraft Lawsuits Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi finally approved a settlement reached in the suits
Kathy D. White v. TNB and Leroy Jenkins v. TNB, according to
Trustmark Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Trustmark National Bank (TNB) is the defendant in two putative
class actions challenging TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or
"non-sufficient funds" fees charged by TNB in connection with
customer use of debit cards, including TNB's order of processing
transactions, notices and calculations of charges, and
calculations of fees.  One of these cases has been dismissed
pursuant to a court-approved settlement, and the other case is
expected to be dismissed in the near future.  Kathy D. White v.
TNB was filed in Tennessee state court in Memphis, Tennessee and
was removed on June 19, 2012 to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee.  (Plaintiff Kathy White had
filed an earlier, virtually identical action that was voluntarily
dismissed.)  Leroy Jenkins v. TNB was filed on June 4, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi.  The White and Jenkins pleadings are matters of
public record in the files of the courts.  In both cases, the
plaintiffs purport to represent classes of similarly-situated
customers of TNB.  The White complaint asserts claims of breach of
contract, breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment.  The Jenkins
complaint originally included similar allegations as well as
federal-law claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA)
and RICO; however, the RICO claims were voluntarily dismissed from
the case on January 9, 2013.  Each of these complaints seeks the
imposition of a constructive trust and unquantified damages.

These complaints were largely patterned after similar lawsuits
that have been filed against other banks across the country.  On
July 19, 2012, the plaintiff in the White case filed an amended
complaint to add plaintiffs from Mississippi and also to add
federal EFTA claims.  Trustmark contends that amended complaint
was procedurally improper.  On October 4, 2012, the plaintiff in
the White case moved for leave to add two Tennessee plaintiffs.
Trustmark filed preliminary dismissal and venue transfer motions,
and discovery proceeded, in the White case; the Jenkins case also
involved active discovery.  Trustmark also filed a motion to
dismiss all claims except the EFTA claim in the Jenkins case.  All
of these motions remained pending when the parties engaged in
active settlement negotiations under the Mississippi federal
court's supervision in June of 2013.

On August 18, 2013, the class action plaintiffs in both cases and
Trustmark agreed to a settlement, the terms and conditions of
which are set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement and
Release (the "Settlement").  The Settlement is a matter of public
record in the court file in the Leroy Jenkins case.  The parties
reached the Settlement through arm's-length negotiations following
two court-ordered settlement conferences with United States
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball.  Under the Settlement, subject to
the terms and conditions therein and subject to court approval,
and without admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by
Trustmark, plaintiffs and a settlement class consisting of TNB
account holders whose accounts met certain criteria with respect
to overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees between September 28,
2005 and the date of the court's preliminary approval of the
Settlement (the "Settlement Class") would fully, finally, and
forever resolve, discharge, and release their claims in exchange
for Trustmark's payment of $4.0 million, inclusive of all
attorneys' fees and costs, to create a common fund to benefit the
Settlement Class.  In addition, Trustmark agreed to adhere to its
current method of time-ordered posting for non-recurring point of
sale and ATM debit transactions for two years following the
effective date of the Settlement, and to pay all fees and costs
associated with providing notice to the Settlement Class and for
implementation of the Settlement by the Settlement Administrator.

In an order dated October 11, 2013, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi preliminarily
approved the Settlement.  Notice was provided to members of the
Settlement Class, who were given the option of opting out of the
Settlement or objecting to the Settlement.  Pursuant to court
approval, a professional Settlement Administrator was engaged to
provide notices to the Settlement Class and to facilitate
apportionment of the Settlement funds and payment of the funds
among class members.  Fewer than twenty class members opted out of
the settlement.  No one objected to the settlement.  The court
held a hearing on March 25, 2014, and on that same day the court
issued an order and final judgment approving the class-wide
Settlement, requiring Trustmark to comply with the agreed-upon
practices, prohibiting members of the Settlement Class from filing
additional suits (except for those who had opted out of the
class), and dismissing the Leroy Jenkins lawsuit with prejudice.
Dismissal of the Kathy D. White case is a condition of the class-
wide Settlement.  That dismissal will be accomplished shortly
after the payments to the Settlement Class are finalized.

The Settlement of $4.0 million, or $2.5 million net of taxes, was
included in other noninterest expense for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.  Trustmark deposited the $4.0 million into the
Settlement Administrator's escrow account on October 25, 2013.


VILLAGGIO CATERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Machuca, Miguel Pacheco and Cristian Asitimbay, on behalf
of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v.
Villaggio Catering Corp., L. Sano Corp., Joseph Loccisano
Rose Loccisano and Dominick Loccisano, Case No. 1:14-cv-03508
(E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2014), seeks to recover from Defendants, unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Villaggio Catering Corp. is a New York corporation located at 150-
07 14th Road, Whitestone, New York, 11357. It operates a food
services enterprise under the trade name "Villaggio".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $7MM to Settle 53,000 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., paid $7 million to settle 53,000 outstanding
asbestos-related personal injury 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.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this
U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota
and Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at
the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the
legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company
cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the
legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company paid $7
million to settle 53,000 outstanding claims.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given our settlement experience
with post-1964 claims, we do not believe that an adverse ruling in
the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any
other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a
material impact on the Company with respect to such claims.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of March 31,
2014.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $250 million,
including $211 million for unasserted claims. The Company's
accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the
year 2023. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for
claims beyond 2023 because the Company believes that the key
assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to
uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 87% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2013), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its business is
organized within three divisions: Americas, Europe and Asia
Pacific. Its segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. Its segments within the European
Division are European Beverage and European Food. European
Beverage includes beverage can operations in Europe, the Middle
East and North Africa. European Food includes food can and metal
vacuum closure operations in Europe and Africa. Its Asia Pacific
Division consists of beverage and non-beverage can operations,
primarily food cans and specialty packaging. In April 2014, the
Company acquired Mivisa Envases, SAU, a Spanish manufacturer of
two- and three-piece food cans and ends, from certain investment
funds managed by affiliates of The Blackstone Group L.P., N+1
Mercapital and management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Pending Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury, 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 had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at both March 31, 2014
and December 31, 2013. In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly
inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final
documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have
accrued $85 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled,
pending and future claims at March 31, 2014, compared to $88
million at December 31, 2013. We use a fifteen-year time horizon
for our estimate of this liability.

At March 31, 2014, we had recorded $53 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $55 million
recorded at December 31, 2013. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place
with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity
and defense costs.

As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was
then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities,
marketable securities and other assets which we believe are
sufficient to satisfy its liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC
continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal
course of business, is separately managed and has an independent
board member. The independent board member is required to approve
certain transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1
or more of value to Dana."

Dana Holding Corporation is global provider of technology
driveline, sealing and thermal-management products for vehicle
manufacturer in the on-highway and off-highway markets. The
Company operates in four business units: Light Vehicle Driveline
Technologies (Light Vehicle Driveline (LVD)), Commercial Vehicle
Driveline Technologies (Commercial Vehicle), Off-Highway Driveline
Technologies (Off-Highway) and Power Technologies. The Company's
LVD segment includes front and rear axles, driveshafts,
differentials, torque couplings and modular assemblies. The
Company's commercial vehicle segment includes axles, driveshafts,
steering shafts, suspensions and tire management systems. The
Company's off-highway segment includes axles, driveshafts and end-
fittings, transmissions, torque converters and electronic
controls. Power Technologies includes gaskets, cover modules, heat
shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat transfer
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against cases alleging asbestos induced illness, 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.

At March 31, 2014, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by
approximately 14,543 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 58
claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the
Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos
claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been
a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as
follows: 41,939 of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to
defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of
which is being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an
immaterial amount and 643 were decided in favor of the Company
following summary judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of welding,
cutting and brazing products. Welding products include arc welding
power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages,
fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The
Company's product offering also includes computer numeric
controlled (CNC) plasma and oxy-fuel cutting systems and
regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding, cutting and
brazing. The Company operates in five segments: North America
Welding, Europe Welding, Asia Pacific Welding, South America
Welding and The Harris Products Group. On July 29, 2011, the
Company acquired Techalloy Company, Inc. and certain assets of its
parent company, Central Wire Industries Ltd. In January 2013, the
Company acquired Tennessee Rand, Inc. Effective November 18, 2013,
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc acquired an undisclosed majority
interest in Burlington Automation Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,300 Pending Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., had approximately 5,300 pending 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 and certain of its subsidiaries along with 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 the Company has
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. The Company's 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, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will
be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition,
the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving
asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of
assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's
indirect subsidiaries.  On April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against
Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of
reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to
negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of
reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to
provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current
and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate
injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other
protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from
products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. Upon
confirmation of such plan of reorganization, the Company expects
to deconsolidate Yarway and to settle intercompany accounts,
including approximately $100 million in intercompany liabilities.
As a result of filing the voluntary petition during the third
quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected loss upon
deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway bankruptcy
petition. Since filing for bankruptcy protection, Yarway has
negotiated with representatives of the committees representing
current and future asbestos claimants, but has been unable to
agree on a plan of reorganization acceptable to all parties. We
believe that certain claims made by the asbestos claimants are
without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
There can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome in the
Bankruptcy Court would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

As of March 28, 2014, the Company has determined that there were
approximately 5,300 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or
entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against such entities and includes adjustments for
claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect
defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the
Company is indemnified.

The Company's estimate of its liability and corresponding
insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs
is based on the Company's historical claim experience over a look-
back period of three years, and estimates of the number and
resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed in
the look-forward period of fifteen years. The Company's legal
strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The
Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating
the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical
claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value
claims reasonably projected to be made in the future during a
defined period of time (the look-forward period). On a quarterly
basis, Tyco assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability
for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating
actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed,
and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and
settlement experience, Tyco considers additional quantitative and
qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal
environment, and the Company's defense strategy. Tyco also
evaluates the recoverability of its insurance receivable on a
quarterly basis. The Company evaluates all of these factors and
determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for
pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance
receivable is warranted.

As of March 28, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability of
$163 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of $315 million, and separately as an asset
for insurance recoveries of $152 million. The Company believes
that its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets
as of March 28, 2014 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September
27, 2013, the Company's estimated net liability of $169 million
was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $321 million, and separately as an asset for insurance
recoveries of $152 million.

The net liabilities reflected in the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet represent the Company's best estimates of probable
losses for the look-forward period. It is reasonably possible that
losses will be incurred for claims made subsequent to such look-
forward periods. However, due to the inherent uncertainty and lack
of reliable trend data in predicting losses beyond 2027, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of losses
beyond such period. With respect to claims made against Yarway,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate losses beyond what it
has accrued because it is uncertain what the impact of Yarway's
reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code will
be on the Company.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely
linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will
impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or
assumption predominately influences the determination of the
Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
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 the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which
provides security products and services, fire protection and
detection products and services, valves and controls, and other
industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide,
Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal
Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired
two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e
Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve
manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the
oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. On May 14, 2010,
it acquired Brink's Home Security Holdings, Inc. (BHS). In June
2011, Tyco acquired 75% interest in United Arab Emirates-based KEF
Holdings Ltd. In September 2011, it acquired Chemguard, Inc. In
April 2014, Tyco International Ltd sold its remaining interest in
Atkore International.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 15 Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 15 pending asbestos cases,
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: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The
Company currently has 72 pending silica cases and 15 pending
asbestos cases. As of March 31, 2014, 1,394 silica cases and 34
asbestos cases have been dismissed. Four new asbestos cases were
filed in the first quarter of 2014, and four asbestos cases were
dismissed. Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed
in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do
not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The
aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases
since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the
costs of defense are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the
terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 15 pending
asbestos cases, all allege liability based on products sold
largely or entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for
which the Company is therefore entitled to indemnification
pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has been that the
Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and
the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury
verdicts in these lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. In May
2014, the Company acquired AMCOL International Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Received $19MM Insurance Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated has received approximately $19 million in
insurance payments related to 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 31, 2014.

Corning is the defendant in approximately 9,700 cases
(approximately 37,400 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos
related to its Corhart business and similar amounts of monetary
damages per case. When Pittsburgh Corning Corporation filed for
bankruptcy protection, the Court granted a preliminary injunction
to suspend all asbestos cases against PCC, PPG Industries, Inc.,
and Corning -- including non-PCC asbestos cases.  The stay remains
in place as of March 31, 2014.  Under the Bankruptcy Court's order
confirming the Amended PCC Plan, the stay will remain in place
until the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed. These non-PCC
asbestos cases have been covered by insurance without material
impact to Corning to date. As of March 31, 2014, Corning had
received for these cases approximately $19 million in insurance
payments related to those claims. If and when the Bankruptcy
Court's confirmation of the Amended PCC Plan is affirmed, these
non-PCC asbestos claims would be allowed to proceed against
Corning. Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation
liability an additional $150 million for these and any future non-
PCC asbestos cases.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. In
March 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from the
shareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquired
Mediatech, Inc. In May 2013, the Company acquired Bargoa SA.
Effective January 15, 2014, Corning Inc acquired the remaining
50.6% interest in Samsung Corning Precision Materials Co Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $692-Mil. Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated estimated its liability for its unit's plan
of reorganization and other asbestos litigation to be $692
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 liability for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation's Amended Plan
and the other asbestos litigation was estimated to be $692 million
at March 31, 2014, compared with an estimate of liability of $690
million at December 31, 2013. The entire obligation is classified
as a non-current liability as installment payments for the cash
portion of the obligation under the Amended PCC Plan are not
scheduled to commence until more than 12 months after the Plan
becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will be
fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment
in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. In
March 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from the
shareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquired
Mediatech, Inc. In May 2013, the Company acquired Bargoa SA.
Effective January 15, 2014, Corning Inc acquired the remaining
50.6% interest in Samsung Corning Precision Materials Co Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Insurers Commence Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated disclosed that several of its insurers have
commenced litigation in state courts for a declaration of the
rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies
affecting the non-Pittsburgh Corning Corporation asbestos cases,
including rights that may be affected by the potential
resolutions, 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.  Corning is vigorously contesting these
cases, and management is unable to predict the outcome of the
litigation.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. In
March 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from the
shareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquired
Mediatech, Inc. In May 2013, the Company acquired Bargoa SA.
Effective January 15, 2014, Corning Inc acquired the remaining
50.6% interest in Samsung Corning Precision Materials Co Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Found on Children's Clothes & Toys
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a
Canberra family with young children has been exposed to deadly Mr
Fluffy asbestos that had fallen down the back of the children's
wardrobes, contaminating their clothes, toys and personal
belongings.

The house has now been placed in a lockdown by ACT WorkSafe,
leaving the family with nowhere to live and putting them under
financial stress and uncertainty regarding the future of the
property.

The confirmation of loose amosite asbestos in the house comes
despite the family undertaking two independent assessments by
class-A asbestos assessors -- both of whom declared the house was
safe.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said he was greatly
concerned by the inspections and has referred the two men to ACT
Planning and Land Authority to consider whether to revoke their
licences.

The discovery was made several weeks ago when the couple was
cleaning out their children's wardrobes and found brownish tinged
fibres that worried them. A sample of the fibres was sent to a
third, experienced assessor who confirmed it was amosite -- a
class-1 carcinogen.

Mr McCabe placed a prohibition notice on the home, confirming that
a fourth independent test had returned a positive result for
amosite.

The family bought the house in the early 1990s and it was revealed
during the sale process to be one of the homes affected by Mr
Fluffy. But it had come with a certificate declaring it had been
cleaned of the deadly loose amosite asbestos.

In line with ACT government advice about Mr Fluffy homes, the
couple decided to get a check on any potential exposed asbestos in
2012 to ensure the safety of the children. The first check
declared the house was safe to live in. But the home underwent a
second inspection this year by the same assessor, who said he was
following up on the ACT government's warning in February that Mr
Fluffy homes could carry dangerous residual fibres in their walls
and subfloors. It again gave the house the all-clear. A second
class-A assessor inspected the property this year and reported the
house was safe.

Meanwhile, important documentation relating to the house has been
"misplaced" by ACT government staff.

The couple said they had contacted ACT Planning and Land Authority
and visited its Mitchell office to view a scanned copy of their
building file. They were disturbed to learn that the file
contained everything except the certificate of clearance on the
asbestos removal that was provided when the family bought the
property.  They have been forced to lodge a freedom of information
request on their property file with the territory government and
said they have received no offers of assistance from the
government.  The couple said the confirmation of loose amosite
asbestos in their home had come as a complete shock and they had
suffered considerable anguish following the discovery.

"We are devastated by the implications of this discovery for our
health and for our home," the mother said. "Our lives have been
disrupted immensely. We have done exactly what the government
asked us to do, in paying to get the house inspected by a licensed
assessor, and yet these checks have failed us."

ACT Workplace Safety Minister Simon Corbell said he was "deeply
concerned for the families who are facing these difficult
circumstances".

"The government is constantly reviewing its response to the issues
raised by home owners as a result of recent asbestos assessments
and will remain proactive in responding to new issues as they
arise," Mr Corbell said.

Yet he also maintained that families should continue to get their
homes inspected by licensed inspectors.

The couple wants the ACT government to look at licensing asbestos
assessors and said a system of quality assurance needed to be put
in place to prevent other Canberra families suffering the same
exposure as theirs.

The Fluffy Owners and Residents Action Group can be contacted at
www.fluffyaction.com or through the Facebook page Friends of the
Fluffy Owners and Residents Action Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Registry Expanded for Saskatchewan Bldgs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Piller, writing for Global News, reported that the
provincial government announced its making public buildings safer
for Saskatchewan workers by enacting asbestos regulations
associated with The Public Health Act, 1994 or Howard' Law.

Occupational health and safety asbestos rules have been amended to
include additional forms of asbestos for the province's online
registry.

"These new requirements will improve safety by better informing
workers on asbestos exposure," said Don Morgan, Saskatchewan's
minister of labour relations and workplace safety.

The ministry says building repairs and maintenance could disturb
asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and release harmful fibres
into the air.

Building owners are now required to have a professional assess ACM
or designate a suspected case until proven otherwise. This
includes identifying such information as accessibility,
concentration and visual details.

Building owners can find forms to email the ministry via
Labour.Webmaster@gov.sk.ca.

Owners who have already provided information are required to
review the new rules and provide an update if applicable.

Enforcement comes in to effect for all asbestos-related activities
starting June 1. Noncompliance could result in a maximum fine of
$20,000.

In November 2013, Saskatchewan proclaimed Howard's Law, which
makes public asbestos registry mandatory for crown corporations,
school districts, health regions and provincial buildings.

Morgan acknowledged Howard Willems' advocacy regarding the dangers
of asbestos.

"Once again I want to acknowledge the late Howard Willems and his
efforts to make Saskatchewan workplaces safer," said Morgan.

The registry was created due to the efforts of Willems, who was
diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, mesothelioma, as a result of
inhaling asbestos working as a public building inspector.
Willems' passed away in November 2012.

The opposition says The Asbestos Right-to-Know Amendment Act was
originally introduced by NDP Leader Cam Broten in the fall of
2012. Broten later requested the name be changed to Howard's Law.

The Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety says the
health effects from long-term asbestos exposure are well
documented in causing lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Saskatchewan's web-based asbestos registry is the first and only
of its kind in Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Launched After Fibro Risk Closes School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Quilliam, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported
that investigations are underway after an Auckland primary school
was forced to close its doors for more than a week because of
potential asbestos contamination.

Staff and 378 children will return to Bayfield School in Herne
Bay, after tests showed the possibility that asbestos dust had
drifted outside a contained worksite on the school grounds.

The students were sent to nearby Ponsonby Primary School and
Ponsonby Intermediate while the demolition work was completed, the
school's principal Sheryl Fletcher said.

Two investigations had been launched by the Ministry of Education
to confirm what went wrong, she said.  The results would be
released to the Board of Trustees and the community.

Ms Fletcher would not be drawn on what the inquiries' conclusions
would be.  The parents were upset, "and obviously we are too", she
said.

"We took it seriously and put a lot of safety measures in place."

The school had been told they had been given the all clear, which
allowed to ensure all surfaces were washed down and clean, Ms
Fletcher said.

"It will be nice to have the children back."

The school was demolishing classrooms on site due to leaky
building problems, and the school swimming pool was also being
removed.  Bayfield Board of Trustees' chairman David McPherson
said that once the school was reopened, building work would not go
ahead until the board could verify it would be undertaken safely.

An asbestos-contaminated building was demolished during the school
holidays, however the demolished material was not removed from the
school site until May 9.  There was concern that during that time
asbestos dust could have travelled from the work site to the rest
of the school grounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposed in Hereford Ambulance Garage
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Hereford & Worcester reported that asbestos has been
exposed inside the garage of a recently refurbished ambulance
station' forcing bosses to keep about 30 ambulance vehicles
outside, a union has said.

Unison spokesman Andy Kibble said holes in Hereford ambulance
station's garage roof were identified.  He said he was concerned
about workers' health at the base.

West Midlands Ambulance Service said the asbestos in the roof area
was "low risk".

'Made safe'

Mr Kibble said specialist equipment had been kept on vehicles
rather than in secure lockers since the discovery.

"It's causing us a lot of problems here at Hereford at the moment
and that's as a result of a delay by management to take action
more promptly," he said.

The station reopened in 2011 after an GBP800,000 revamp to turn it
into a hub for the county.  A trust spokesman said the substance
had been identified as "non-asbestos fibre-board ceiling tiles
coated in asbestos paper".

"The trust has arranged for its asbestos analyst to conduct air
and physical sampling of the site which will then be thoroughly
cleaned and made safe.

"An investigation involving unions and the trust's health and
safety officers will be conducted."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Led to Lymington Veteran's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a war veteran died from exposure
to asbestos during his time in the military, an inquest heard.

Eric Catchpole died at Lymington New Forest Hospital after being
diagnosed with the lung cancer mesothelioma.  A Southampton
inquest heard how the 90-year-old great-grandfather from Campion
Way, Lymington, served as a stoker for the Royal Navy.  He worked
and even slept in ship engine rooms lagged with asbestos, the
inquest was told.  He died on April 5.

Pathologist Dr Norman Carr told the inquest the pensioner's lungs
showed evidence of asbestos exposure, plus chronic bronchitis and
emphysema.  Southampton deputy coroner Gordon Denson recorded a
verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Rules That Exposure Theory Insufficient
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed that a former
refinery worker failed to provide enough evidence proving his late
wife's third-party mesothelioma resulted from the defendant's
products.

Judge Eugene Strassburger delivered the opinion in the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania on April 24 affirming the lower court's
decision to grant summary judgment to two defendants in a third-
party asbestos lawsuit.

Judge Strassburger agreed with the trial court that the claimant
failed to provide sufficient evidence proving his wife developed
mesothelioma from his work with the defendants' products.

Allen Groover, on behalf of his deceased wife Cheryl Groover,
appealed two January 2013 orders granting summary judgment for
defendants CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) and Spirax Sarco, Inc.,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil
Division.

Groover filed his lawsuit against several defendants in September
2011 after his wife died of mesothelioma in October 2010.

Groover worked in a Marcus Hook, Pa., refinery from 1973 to 2010.
He alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while working with
Westinghouse turbines and Sarco steam traps. During his work,
Groover believes asbestos dust attached to his clothing and he
carried it home. His wife was exposed to the toxic dust when she
consistently laundered his work clothing, resulting in her
developing mesothelioma, he alleges.

Both Westinghouse and Sarco moved for summary judgment in November
2012. It was granted in January 2013. Groover appealed.

Relating to the approved summary judgments, Groover questioned
whether the trial court erred as a matter of law because he says
the record reveals issues of material fact relating to asbestos
exposure to the company's turbines.  He also questioned whether
the lower court ruled correctly on the statute of repose in
regards to Westinghouse and whether the record on Sarco revealed
evidence that the company is liable for asbestos in gaskets that
are necessary components of its steam traps.

Judge Strassburger wrote that Groover must show that the injuries
were caused by a product of the specific defendants in order for
liability to attach in a products liability claim.

Furthermore, Groover must also present sufficient evidence that
the decedent inhaled asbestos fibers from a specific
manufacturer's product in order to defeat summary judgment, the
court ruled.

In this case, the regularity-frequency-proximity standard was used
for determining whether a plaintiff provided sufficient evidence
for a jury to reasonably conclude that the decedent breathed
asbestos fibers from a specific defendant's product.

"Furthermore, we note that in the instant case, the question is
not whether the products were used with such regularity and
frequency in the workplace such that Groover breathed fibers from
the products," Judge Strassburger stated.

"Rather, the question is whether his work regularly and frequently
placed him in proximity with the defendants' products attached to
Groover's clothing, were breathed by decedent when she did the
laundry, and were a substantial cause of decedent's development of
mesothelioma."

Westinghouse summary judgment

Judge Strassburger wrote that Westinghouse claimed there was no
triable issue of material fact showing decedent's exposure was a
result of Westinghouse's products. It asserts that Groover failed
to offer sufficient evidence to satisfy the regularity-frequency-
proximity standard.

After examining the evidence, the trial court concluded that
Groover failed to provide evidence that he was in the proximity of
Westinghouse's turbines or that the turbines even contained
asbestos during the time that he worked there. Therefore, he also
failed to prove that asbestos fibers from the turbines attached to
his clothing causing his wife to inhale the dust.

Judge Strassburger agreed with the trial court, saying it did not
abuse its discretion when evaluating the evidence.

Examining the evidence himself, Judge Strassburger concluded that
Groover did identify that he was exposed to asbestos from
Westinghouse turbines, but failed to indicate regularity and
frequency of the exposure.

Groover provided a deposition from his brother and co-worker, Earl
Groover, as part of his evidence. However, Strassburger found that
Groover's brother only worked side-by-side with the plaintiff
during an eight-to-10-week period in 1988. The plaintiff's brother
also said he couldn't associate asbestos-containing products with
Westinghouse turbines during that brief period when they worked
together.

Groover's brother did testify that visible dust was released from
asbestos insulation in the boiler houses during an "upset
condition," but he could not testify that he or Groover was in the
boiler house during those conditions.

"Given this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred
in holding that Groover presented insufficient evidence that
asbestos fibers from a Westinghouse product attached to his
clothing in the workplace and were breathed by decedent at
Groover's home," Judge Strassburger concluded.

As for Groover's statute of repose question, Strassburger said the
issue was moot because the claimant failed to provide sufficient
evidence of exposure, meaning summary judgment would have been
granted regardless.

Sarco summary judgment

Sarco alleged Groover and his brother's testimonies failed to
satisfy the regularity-frequency-proximity standard. It also
contended that it was not liable for asbestos-containing component
parts used in its products unless it manufactured, supplied or
specified the use of those specific parts.

The trial court ruled that Groover did not provide enough evidence
showing that his wife inhaled asbestos fibers from Sarco products.

While Groover presented evidence that he worked with Sarco steam
traps, he admitted in his deposition that he only removed the
asbestos-containing gaskets when they were attached to the top of
the steam trap but never changed a gasket inside a steam trap.

Groover further alleges that because the products in question
contained asbestos and were present in his work area, it is
sufficient for a jury to conclude that a plaintiff could be
exposed and injured by the products.

However, Judge Strassburger wrote that the problem with this
analysis is that it is not the law.

"Only 'casual or minimum exposure to the defendant's product' is
insufficient to meet the 'frequency, regularity, and proximity'
test," he stated.

Judge Strassburger cited the Howard III decision, which indicates
that the "each and every exposure" theory is not viable to
establish liability in a dose-responsive disease. He added that de
minimus exposure to an asbestos-containing product is insufficient
to establish causation.

"Clearly, this requires some affirmative showing that the
plaintiff or decedent breathed dust from the particular
defendant's product," Judge Strassburger wrote. "A plaintiff no
longer may simply offer evidence that he or she worked with or
around a defendant's product."

However, Groover failed to present evidence establishing his own
exposure to asbestos fibers released from a Sarco product, let
alone that decedent inhaled Sarco asbestos fibers from his work
clothing, the court ruled.

"Given the legal precedent and our standard of review, we cannot
conclude that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in
finding that Groover offered insufficient evidence that decedent
breathed asbestos fibers from a Sarco product," Judge Strassburger
wrote.

As for Groover's question regarding Sarco's liability for
component parts of the steam traps, Judge Strassburger considered
the issue moot. Because Groover failed to provide enough evidence
showing the decedent was injured from Groover's work with Sarco
products, the court did not even distinguish between Sarco steam
traps and the asbestos-containing gasket component parts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Disposal Trial in Penrith, NSW Begins
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Marys-Mt. Druitt Star reported that the problem of asbestos
disposal has led Penrith and other councils in New South Wales to
participate in a new project for its safe removal and containment.

The Environment Protection Authority developed the western Sydney
residential asbestos disposal trial. It aims to help householders
get rid of the toxic substance legally and safely.

"It is a problematic waste to dispose of," Penrith Council's
report said.

"Asbestos must be disposed of at a licensed facility and the cost
to do this can be quite high."

Given that many buildings in the Penrith region, including
people's homes, were built before 1980, many contain asbestos
because it was commonly used for insulation.

Asbestos fibres can cause cancer, often decades after people were
exposed to it.

Authorities have warned people against renovating old homes,
fearing that ignorance of the dangers could expose them and others
to the fibres.  The asbestos disposal trial will seek to inform
residents of risks such as these and how to safely manage the
substance.  The Environment Protection Authority is also providing
a pool of $80,000 for participating councils to operate the
program.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dust in Glasgow Bins Lead to Exposure Fear
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe McGuire, writing for Daily Record and Sunday Mail, reported
that people living in the east end are furious after it took eight
days to remove asbestos dust from bins in the Gallowgate, in
Glasgow City, United Kingdom.

The alarm was raised after bin men discovered the powder in bins
at David Court on May 6.  But the material wasn't removed by a
specialist team until eight days after it was first detected.

Residents are angry over the delay, and say they're terrified they
may have been exposed to the potentially lethal substance.

Inhalation of asbestos, which was used as a fire-resistant
material in buildings, can lead to lung cancer and pulmonary
problems, which can both take as long as 20 years to develop.

It is currently unknown how the asbestos entered the bins.

West of Scotland Housing Association, who own the property, say
they are working with police to find out.

One resident, who asked not to be named, said: "I think it's an
absolute joke.

"Whoever dumped this here was putting everybody's health at risk,
but it shouldn't have taken so long for it to be removed.

"I'm genuinely scared that down the line there'll be people who
get health problems as a result of this."

West of Scotland Housing Association employed council arm's-length
building body City Building's Asbestos Team to safely remove the
material on May 14.  Air test results of the area after removal
have come back clear, and the housing association says no further
action is required.

Colin Turnbull, Director of Operations at West of Scotland Housing
Association, said: "These items had been illegally dumped.

"We take the health and safety of our residents very seriously and
are working with the police to investigate the matter and ensure
this doesn't happen again."

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council said: "It is the
responsibility of a landowner to ensure the safe and lawful
disposal of asbestos found on their land."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Fined Over "Flagrant" Fibro Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPConstruction Safety reported that a supervisor of asbestos
removal work has been prosecuted after he recklessly exposed
himself to asbestos material in May 2013.

Jack Conn was seen working "unprotected" at the site at Canterbury
Academy where he walking 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 heard (20 May) that on arrival at the
school an HSE Inspector saw the thorough and correct preparations
the firm had put in place. These 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.

The Inspector proceeded to the basement and viewed what was
happening inside the sealed enclosure on a CCTV monitor.  During
the HSE investigation Mr Conn 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 RPE. He also confirmed he had
undertaken the training to be a supervisor.

Casual disregard for dangers

Jack Conn, 23, of Brissenden Close, Upnor, Rochester, Kent, was
fined GBP1,000 with GBP1,500 towards costs after admitting a
breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

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: Fibro Campaigner in Queensland Dies
----------------------------------------------------
Marissa Calligeros, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that
leading asbestos safety advocate Raymond Colbert has passed away
of asbestos disease aged 67.

Mr Colbert worked tirelessly on behalf of fellow disease sufferers
for many years as secretary of the Asbestos Related Disease
Support Society Queensland, Australia.  Among his greatest
achievements was "Ray's Ride", where Mr Colbert travelled from
Toowoomba to Brisbane in his motorised wheelchair to raise
awareness of asbestos diseases mesothelioma and asbestosis and
medical research funds.  The journey took Mr Colbert through the
flood-affected Ipswich and Lockyer Valley regions in 2011.

"Ray, who was wheelchair bound and on oxygen 24 hours a day, took
five days to complete the ride, battling the November heat and
plenty of flies," said Andrew Ramsay, the asbestos society's vice
president.

"He travelled along many rough roads through the towns of
Grantham, Gatton, Laidley, Ipswich, and ended . . . in Brisbane.

"His journey also raised $60,000 in much needed donations to
support Queensland sufferers of asbestos diseases."

Mr Colbert was exposed to asbestos fibres while working for the
Australian navy in his youth.

"I served in the engine rooms of the Royal Australian Navy
aircraft carriers HMAS Melbourne and Sydney for nine years," he
once told The Queensland Times.

"When the planes would land on the Melbourne it would shake and
asbestos fibres would fall, just like snow coming down.

"If you were going to be contaminated with it [asbestos] that was
a good place to get it."

Ray is survived by his wife Helen, sons Darrel, Carl and
Christopher, and grandchildren Lucinda, Matthew and Emily.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Fears Grow for Naval Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Conall O Fatharta, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that
workers at the naval dockyard in Haulbowline, Co Cork, in Ireland,
have hit out at management for drip-feeding information on the
potential exposure to asbestos.

The criticism comes after the Irish Examiner revealed that more
than 150 Naval Service personnel and civilian workers could have
come in contact with asbestos as the crisis deepens over the
extent of exposure to the life-threatening substance. Half the
fleet has now been affected after it emerged that a fourth ship,
the LE Eithne, is tied up amid concern that there is asbestos
onboard.

Civilian workers at the dockyard have said the transparency
promised by management has not been seen and they are not being
afforded the same treatment as naval personnel.

Michael Gilmartin, who works as a general operative at the base,
said that since the asbestos issue arose, civilian workers have
had to fight to receive information.

"They haven't given us anything," he said. "We had to go and get
it. There has been no transparency. What they are doing is that,
if you don't kick and scream and throw your rattle out of the
pram, they are leaving you to the side," he said.

Patrick Gilmartin, who has worked at the dockyard for more than
two decades, said workers were angry that they were not being
treated with the same respect as naval personnel.

"What really annoys us is that the navy have been looked after,"
he said. "They have received screening already, that's been and
done and dusted . . .  They're all sorted and we have just been
kicked aside."

General operative Philip Soans said workers had huge health
concerns arising from the discovery of asbestos, particularly as
some staff members had been working there for decades.

"With the asbestos awareness course that we've done, we have been
working a lot longer than four months on this," he said. "I've
been here 16 years. It seems now that I have been working with it
16 years without consultation from the management telling us we
were working with asbestos."

Siptu's Jason Palmer, who represents 25 workers potentially
exposed on the LE Ciara, said management needed to be proactive
when it came to releasing information to workers.

"They've given us the information when we have asked but we feel
that we shouldn't have to ask," he said. "They should be coming to
us saying: 'This is the situation on this vessel, this is the
situation on that vessel' and allaying the fears if they can and
removing the uncertainty that's there."

The Naval Service has said all recommendations from the Health &
Safety Authority would be implemented, including training workers
in asbestos recognition and its safe removal.

It also said it had engaged in a proactive manner with workers on
every concern.

"Subject matter experts, engineering, medical and health and
safety, have been engaged and provided expert advice. All such
advice, direction, and guidance has been followed," said the Navy
statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Fibro Victim Widows in Search for Truth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Lancaster, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that
two widows are looking for any witnesses that may be able to help
understand the causes behind the death of their husbands.

Shirley Chase and Diane Allen are making the plea following the
deaths of their husbands Michael Chase and Bernard Allen.

Michael, who passed away at 74 on the 18th of August 2013, died
from mesothelioma, an asbestos related illness. Bernard also died
of the same condition on 5 February 2014 at the age of 72.

Both women are heartbroken. Shirley commented "Mike and I had been
married for 52 years. He was my entire life and since his passing
I have been totally lost. I have taken great comfort in a Support
Group for mesothelioma sufferers set up by my solicitor, Helen
Grady. These meetings are held each month and if anyone is in a
similar position to me then please feel free to contact me as you
may wish to come along to support lunches at the Copthorne Hotel
in Plymouth".

Diane added "I am devastated that I have lost Bernard who was so
fit and healthy before his diagnosis. He was enjoying a very
active retirement and his hobbies were very physical and included
cycling and karate. Bernard was obviously devastated at his
diagnosis and struggled to come to terms with this. During his
lifetime he was determined to seek justice for his condition which
he knew was linked to past exposure to asbestos dust. During the
time of Bernard's illness he did have chemotherapy and did all he
could to prolong his life. Bernard's last wish was for me to carry
on with his case after his death".

Before passing away, Michael recalled some exposure to asbestos
dust whilst working for the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary as a
Civilian stationed at Charles Cross Station in Plymouth between
the years 1980-1998.  He was also able to remember incidents of
floods and roof leaks, in which the asbestos ceiling tiles, placed
there when the Police Station was built in the 1960's, were
damaged.

In one incident, Michael said he was covered in white asbestos
dust in his hair and clothes after a hurricane caused the station
roof to collapse.

Similarly, Bernard was exposed to asbestos dust around 1974 whilst
working for Kneels Laundry Services based at Cowley Bridge in
Exeter. Around the time when the vessels at the Dockyard were
under refurbishment, Bernard would collect and shake the dust off
of dirty overalls ready to be laundered. He would handle around
20-30 overalls at a time before placing them in his wagon to be
transported and cleaned.

Solicitor, Helen Grady of Novum Law is helping the women find
witnesses, and added that these cases are particularly sad, as the
men were exposed to asbestos during the 1970's to the 1990's when
the harmful effects of asbestos inhalation were well and truly
known.

She added that "It is estimated that 50,000 people are likely to
die of this disease in the UK in the next 30 years and ensuring
that innocent people are not unwittingly exposed to this
carcinogenic substance has to be something that we all need to
prioritise."

If you were a police officer or maintenance men who can remember
building and maintenance work at the Charles Cross Police Station
during the 1980's and 1990's then please come forward and contact
Shirley Chase on 01752 224 367.

Alternatively, if you are a former Devonport Dockyard worker who
remembers having to put your dusty dirty overalls in for laundry
during 1974, after working amongst asbestos dust and debris then
Please contact Helen Grady of Novum Law, Plymouth on: 0800 884
0555 or at www.novumlaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington Company Fined $5,500 Over Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reported that a company in Perth,
Australia, has been fined $5500 for failing to properly identify
the presence and location of asbestos at one of its worksites.
SGS Australia, which has about 70 locations around Australia,
pleaded guilty in Perth Magistrates Court to failing to ensure
asbestos was identified at its geochemical service facility in
Queens Park.

A WorkSafe inspection in June 2010 identified asbestos in several
parts of the building, which was confirmed when SGS later
commissioned an expensive asbestos assessment.  WA's work safety
laws require an asbestos register to be established in workplaces
that may contain the deadly material, and warning signage must
also be placed at areas containing asbestos.

WorkSafe WA Commissioner Lex McCulloch said that the case was a
reminder to all employers to identify asbestos in workplaces.

"Although the company did make some attempt to address the
asbestos issue at its other workplaces, it did not ensure that
information about asbestos at its workplaces was passed along to
all relevant parties, including any outside contractors who worked
at their sites," he said.

"If a building may contain asbestos, everyone having any control
has a responsibility to ensure that it is documented -- from the
employer, main contractor or self-employed person to the building
owner or property manager."

Information about the location of asbestos also needed to be made
available to anyone who entered a workplace so relevant
precautions could be taken, Mr McCulloch said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Flully Found in Canberra Home
--------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a family has been forced to flee their home
in Canberra, Australia, after potentially deadly asbestos fibres
were found in children's clothes and toys.

The house in the unnamed Canberra suburb had previously been
cleaned of Mr Fluffy asbestos fibres and then twice declared safe
by two independent assessors.  But fibres were recently found in a
wardrobe and Work Safe ACT shut down the home with a prohibition
notice.

A company called Mr Fluffy, operating in Canberra between 1968 and
1978, installed the loose fill asbestos in hundreds of homes.

Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe says sometimes removal
notices can be misleading.

"Unfortunately people have just looked at the title of those
sheets which say "clearance certificate" and they've made an
assumption about that," he said.

Mr McCabe says the family had to leave the house quickly, with
very few possessions.

"They were able to take some clothes from the house," he said.

"The prohibition notice said that the residents have to leave the
house until the house can be cleaned and no work can be done on
the house removing the fibres except with WorkSafe permission.

"It appears the asbestos has come down from the ceiling through a
gap at the back of the wardrobe."

Mr McCabe says the family did all the right checks, and he has
referred the two assessors to the ACT Planning and Land Authority
for investigation.

"They will need to investigate whether there is an issue there,"
he said.

"I've got some concerns from what I've seen, but only a full
investigation can determine what really were the circumstances in
which those reports were done, if they were inadequate, and if so,
why?"

Environment Minister Simon Corbell says the Constructions
Occupations Registrar is investigating the issue.

"We'll need to ascertain what nature of inspection was requested
by the home owner on two previous occasions," he said.

Mr Corbell has also defended the general quality of assessors.

"The Government keeps this issue under constant review," he said.

"The ACT has one of the highest levels of asbestos awareness
training and accreditation of any jurisdiction in Australia.

"We are continually reviewing that given the particular
circumstances we face in relation to the loose fill, Mr Fluffy,
asbestos homes."

But Mr Corbell says the Government is preparing to announce some
changes.

"The Government will consider further options in the coming weeks
to further strengthen and improve the level of information
available to householders as well as options to potentially assist
householders with managing some of these issues," he said.

Mr McCabe says assessment problems are rare.

The home is one of around 12 homes, out of more than 1,000 homes
cleaned of Mr Fluffy asbestos, where fibres have since been found.

In May, Canberra resident Brianna Heseltine founded an action
group for Mr Fluffy home owners in order to lobby for Government
help.

"Already I've spoken to and had emails from more than 100
families," she said.

Ms Heseltine has appealed to the ACT Government to provide short
term accommodation assistance to affected families.

"When you're in that period of crisis, I think if the Government
could come up with some sort of fund to provide immediate
assistance to people, it would be of great help," she said.

"I can say that in my own experience, it did indeed feel like a
crisis when I was asked to leave my home."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Fail to Prove Exposure to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a New Jersey appellate court has agreed a pump manufacturer
had a duty to warn those who would be working with its products
about the asbestos-containing component parts, but affirmed a
summary judgment ruling because the plaintiffs failed to provide
evidence showing specific exposure to the defendant's products.

After arguing the case in the Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division in September, the appeals court concluded on
April 23 that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation.

Judge Marianne Espinosa delivered the opinion. Judges Clarkson
Fisher and Ellen Koblitz agreed.

Four consolidated lawsuits brought in the Superior Court of New
Jersey in Middlesex County alleged the plaintiffs were exposed to
asbestos from component parts of pumps manufactured by Goulds
Pumps, Inc.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Goulds, resulting in
an appeal filed by all four plaintiffs.

The appeals court was considering whether a manufacturer has a
duty to warn of the dangers associated with asbestos-containing
component parts that were regularly replaced as part of routine
maintenance.

Judge Espinosa wrote that it would be "reasonable, practical and
feasible" to impose a duty to warn, but the plaintiffs failed to
make a prima facie showing of causation.

The appeals court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that causation
was proven by showing proximity to Goulds' product without proving
they were directly exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured or sold by Goulds.

"The circumstances in this case suggest that Goulds had a duty to
warn that component parts of its pumps contained asbestos," Judge
Espinosa wrote. "However, despite drawing reasonable inferences
from the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we also
conclude that summary judgment was properly granted here because
plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of causation."

Plaintiff Thomas Fayer was a member of the Asbestos Workers Union,
Local 14, and was diagnosed with lung cancer in July 2009. He died
from his injuries in January 2010 at the age of 81.

Plaintiff Angelo Mystrena, a member of the International
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers,
Local 89, was diagnosed with asbestosis in December 2009.

Plaintiffs Michael Greever and Elbert Hughes alleged they suffer
from asbestos-related pulmonary disease.

Until 1985, a majority of the pumps Goulds manufactured included
asbestos-containing gaskets and packing.

Judge Espinosa stated that Goulds knew the asbestos-containing
component parts would need to be replaced in the pumps as part of
routine maintenance, which was the case for the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit.

By the time the plaintiffs worked in proximity to the pumps, the
original gaskets and packing had been replaced, and the
manufacturer or supplier of the replacement parts remained
unknown.

Goulds moved for summary judgment in the Hughes and Greever cases
in August 2011 and then requested summary judgment in the Fayer
and Mystrena cases in November 2011.

Goulds argued that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence
proving they were exposed to asbestos-containing products it
either manufactured, distributed or supplied, "let alone with
frequency, regularity and proximity."

The trial court granted summary judgment, noting that while the
plaintiffs worked on Goulds pumps, "there's absolutely zero proof
that Goulds supplied, manufactured, or anything, the replacement
gaskets and packing so what this fellow may have been exposed to
was a product manufactured and sold by someone else."

The plaintiffs agreed that the manufacturers of the replacement
components cannot be identified, but asserted Goulds should still
be strictly liable for failing to provide a warning when the
original component parts contained asbestos.

The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment, concluding
that Goulds was not liable for failure to warn because it did not
specify or require asbestos-containing replacement component
parts.

"The court concluded that because long-standing New Jersey law
requires the defect to exist when the product leaves the
defendant's control, liability should be limited to those
defendants in the chain of distribution of the defective product,"
Espinosa wrote.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs alleged Goulds was strictly liable
for its failure to warn because it was foreseeable that asbestos-
containing products would be used in the pumps when the gaskets
and packing were replaced.

Fayer and Mystrena also individually assert Goulds is liable on
common law negligence grounds.

However, Goulds alleged the plaintiffs failed to show they were
exposed to asbestos from products it manufactured, distributed,
sold or supplied, and that they failed to present a prima facie
case proving Goulds was strictly liable. It added that strict
liability principles are limited to those in the chain of
distribution of the product allegedly resulting in asbestos
exposure.

Judge Espinosa began by examining the question of whether Goulds
had a duty to provide a warning, citing New Jersey law that states
manufacturers and subsequent parties in the chain of distribution
are strictly liable for damages caused by defectively designed
products.

On the other hand, Goulds alleged it is not in the "chain of
distribution" of the asbestos-containing component parts, meaning
it did not have a duty to warn.

"As we have noted, the nature of the product is an important
factor in assessing the reasonableness of defendant's conduct in
failing to provide a warning," Judge Espinosa wrote. "It is
undisputed that the pump as originally marketed had gaskets and
packing that contained asbestos. However, the parties disagree as
to whether this made the pump dangerous."

Eugene Bradshaw, Goulds' corporate designee, testified that there
was no danger because the gaskets were contained between metal
parts and packing that contained "rubberizing gumming things"
lubricating the gaskets when being used.

However, Thomas Fayer's son, Gregory Fayer, worked as an insulator
and testified that removing and replacing old gaskets and packing
in Goulds pumps creates visible dust that his father would have
inhaled.

Judge Espinosa explained that the defendant is presumed to know of
any danger its product posed to users under a strict liability
analysis. Assuming Goulds failed to provide a warning when the
original pumps entered the marketplace, the appeals court focused
on determining the foreseeable users and uses of the product.

"In this case, asbestos-containing gaskets and packing posed an
inherent danger in the pumps as originally manufactured," she
added. "The fact that these component parts would be replaced
regularly as part of routine maintenance did not absolve Goulds of
any duty to warn because it was reasonably foreseeable that these
components would be replaced as part of regular maintenance."

While it is understood that Goulds did not require asbestos-
containing replacement parts, the company was unaware of any
substitutes for asbestos gaskets and packing until the 1960s and
70s, Judge Espinosa concluded. Therefore, it was reasonably
foreseeable that the component parts would be replaced with
asbestos-containing products, she wrote.

As a result, those working with the pumps as originally
manufactured and those working with the replacement component
parts are included in the foreseeable class of users, including
the plaintiffs in this case.

Regardless, Judge Espinosa wrote that just because harm is
foreseeable, the court must take fairness and policy in
consideration before imposing a duty to warn.

"Mindful that the purpose of a warning is to reduce the risk of a
product 'to the greatest extent possible without hindering its
utility,' we also assume that the cost of including a warning when
the pump is originally marketed would have 'but a slight impact on
the risk-utility analysis, since such cost would generally have
little, if any, effect on a product's utility,' and that the
manufacturer has the capacity to include any attendant additional
cost to purchasers as needed," she continued.

Ultimately, the appeals court concluded that it was "reasonable,
practical and feasible" to impose a duty to warn on Goulds.

"Since risk of exposure continued and was perhaps increased by the
replacement process, a warning given at the time of the initial
sale would ensure that this information was available to be
considered in subsequent decisions regarding the choice of
replacement parts and any additional safeguards for workers who
made the replacements," Judge Espinosa wrote.

Despite the fact that Goulds owed a duty to warn the plaintiffs,
the appeals court was not convinced that the plaintiffs provided
sufficient evidence to prove causation, thus rendering summary
judgment appropriate.

Judge Espinosa explained that plaintiffs do not have to prove
direct evidence and can rely on circumstantial evidence.

"Still, liability should not be imposed on mere guesswork,"
Espinosa wrote.

In order for the plaintiffs to support causation allegations from
circumstantial evidence, they have to provide evidence of exposure
specifically to Goulds' products on a "regular basis over an
extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff
actually worked."

While the plaintiffs may be able to prove the asbestos-containing
gaskets and packing were being used at their workplaces, they must
provide actual proof linking their exposure to the products in
order to impose strict liability, she wrote.

The plaintiffs believe they did provide sufficient evidence to
survive summary judgment by proving they had extensive contact
with Goulds pumps. However, they did not show sufficient contact
with the component parts that allegedly caused their injuries, the
opinion states.

"We do not agree that plaintiffs may prove causation by showing
exposure to a product without also showing exposure to an injury-
producing element in the product that was manufactured or sold by
defendant," Judge Espinosa wrote. "If that were the case, a
manufacturer or seller who failed to give a warning could be
strictly liable for alleged injuries long after the product
entered the marketplace even if the injury-producing element of
the product no longer existed."

Because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that they had
contact with asbestos from the replacement parts that were
actually manufactured or sold by Goulds, the appeals court
concluded that summary judgment was appropriate.

As for Fayer and Mystrena's negligence claims against Goulds,
Espinosa concluded that a negligence claim requires proof that
Goulds knew or should have known that the failure to warn could
result in injury. Because the plaintiffs failed to present proof,
the appeals court concluded that summary judgment was proper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Looking for Fibro in Ropes Crossing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Stevens, writing for St. Marys-Mt. Druitt, reported that
workers dressed in anti-asbestos gear have spent an afternoon in
May digging the ground in Ropes Crossing, in New South Wales.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president and Blackett
resident Barry Robson contacted the Star after driving past the
workers near the Forrester Road entrance.  He believes the land
was being prepared to be built on.

"I know anti-asbestos gear when I see it," Mr Robson said.

"I've never seen them there before. It vindicates what people have
been saying for years. Potential buyers should be made aware and
not consider moving there until they can be given a 100 per cent
guarantee that there's no more asbestos there."

Now an estate managed by Lend Lease, it was revealed the site was
contaminated with toxic waste and asbestos in 2003.

In recent years, local environmentalists have renewed calls to be
shown records showing the former ADI site had toxic waste and
asbestos cleared before it was developed.

"The public has a right to know," Shalvey resident Brent Robertson
said in 2012.

"My hopes are there's nothing there but why aren't they (Lend
Lease) returning my phone calls? All we want is transparency.
There are people buying property and living with their
grandchildren."

Lend Lease has previously said the development area underwent a
thorough and transparent remediation process spanning almost 20
years and that the public aren't at risk.

The Star has contacted Lend Lease for a comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Heading to Prison Over Fibro Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
David Wren, writing for Myrtle Beach Online, reported that a
Little River, Michigan man who allowed cancer-causing asbestos to
blow onto the beach while his company renovated an oceanfront
condominium tower will spend six months in prison for violating
the federal Clean Air Act, a federal prosecutor said.

David Braswell -- whose company, Cool Cote LLC, was contracted to
remove and replace siding at the Regency Towers in Myrtle Beach in
March 2009 -- also will face six months of home confinement and
three years of probation following his release from prison. He
also was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine during a sentencing hearing
this week in Florence.

Braswell had faced a maximum five-year prison sentence and a
$250,000 fine as part of a plea agreement in which he admitted
guilt to one felony charge. He initially was charged with seven
violations of the Clean Air Act and two felony charges of making
false statements to federal agents investigating the pollution.

Charges will be dropped against Cool Cote because the company is
now defunct, according to Jim May, the assistant U.S. attorney who
prosecuted the case.

According to an indictment issued last year, Braswell started
renovation work at Regency Towers without conducting an asbestos
inspection or filing a written notice with the S.C. Department of
Health and Environmental Control, as required by law. Cool Cote
also pressure washed the building's exterior without properly
securing the area to prevent a release of friable asbestos, which
blew onto the beach and neighboring properties.

"The workers for Cool Cote Inc. were not provided with respiratory
protection, nor were the residents of Regency Towers informed of
the danger and provided personal or environmental protection," the
indictment states.

Prosecutors say Braswell and other Cool Cote employees knew about
the presence of at least 35 cubic feet of asbestos-containing
material in the building's exterior coating but proceeded with the
renovation without taking legally required precautions.

The indictment also states that Braswell lied to criminal
investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency on two
occasions, saying "he had no knowledge of the presence of asbestos
on the siding of Regency Towers."

"Today's sentence should serve notice that EPA and its partner
agencies remain committed to protecting communities through tough
enforcement of the nation's environmental laws," said Maureen
O'Mara, special agent in charge of EPA's criminal enforcement
program in South Carolina.

Bill Nettles, the U.S. attorney for South Carolina, said his
office is committed to prosecuting violations of environmental
laws.

"Our office will continue to prioritize the environmental work we
do with both federal and state agencies, to ensure these cases are
brought to the forefront," Nettles said in a prepared statement.

DHEC officials helped the EPA investigate the case and referred
the matter to the U.S. Attorney's office for criminal prosecution.

May said Braswell will report to prison within the next 30 to 60
days.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit Filed by Former Texaco Worker
---------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reported that a man is suing over
claims his lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Safety Rules Take Effect in Singapore
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Heng, writing for The Straits Times, reported that revised
rules to protect workers from exposure to asbestos -- mineral
fibres in construction material that can cause diseases -- took
effect.

The Workplace Safety and Health (Asbestos) Regulations will
replace the existing Factories (Asbestos) Regulations, said the
Ministry of Manpower of Singapore.

Under the new rules, an asbestos survey must be carried out before
any work involving certain materials or before building works such
as demolition or alteration.  This must be done by someone with
enough experience and training and who has passed the Survey
Asbestos and Other Fibres Risks at the Workplace Course, under the
Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications framework.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sack Neil" Call in Fibro Wards Row
----------------------------------------------------
Graham Miller, writing for Daily Record and Sunday Mail, reported
that pressure was growing on U.K. Health Secretary Alex Neil to
resign -- over an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code which,
it's claimed, saw him order Monklands Hospital wards in Airdrie
with an asbestos problem be kept open.

Following a successful Freedom of Information appeal, Motherwell
and Wishaw MSP John Pentland said: "Papers released to me make it
clear that a plan years in the making, backed by patients and
carers, NHS clinicians and managers, council and voluntary
organisation partners, was overturned overnight because Alex Neil
said so, with no good reason given.

"He simply dismissed the robust support for the plan and made it
clear that he wanted the health board to switch to a previously-
rejected inferior option.

"Alex Neil was supposed to take himself out of the frame for
considering the proposals, and indeed, should never have pushed on
a constituency matter using his powers as Cabinet Secretary.

"This has had significant repercussions for services in
Lanarkshire in terms of delays, costs, and the provision of
services."

Mr Pentland claimed the integrity of health care professionals has
been undermined and that emails made available to him show the
wards Mr Neil wanted to keep open were regarded as unsuitable and
below the standard required to provide an acceptable level of
care.

"On top of that, we discovered this weekend that they (Monklands)
have a problem with asbestos", he added.

"Alex Neil knew this was a problem in some wards but apparently
didn't think to check before he vetoed the mental health plan.

"We also have a health board official saying that following
pressure from Alex Neil, Derek Feeley -- director general for
health -- asked Lanarkshire chief executive Tim Davison to hold
back the plan until after the local elections.

"That in itself is quite a shocking allegation."

Labour Leader Johann Lamont said: "The emails released this week
show that Alex Neil ordered decisions made by his predecessor
Nicola Sturgeon to be reversed and then deceived the parliament
and the people of Scotland about what he had done.

"The clear advice from health professionals was that the course of
action he decided was 'less than optimal' for patients but he
decided to put his own political interests first.

"If Alex Neil doesn't have the good grace to accept responsibility
and resign, Alex Salmond should sack him."

Alex Salmond refused to sack Mr Neil four times at the First
Minister's Questions at Holyrood, claiming that the Ministerial
Code -- which sets out strict rules and regulations for the
standard of professional behaviour expected from Scottish
Government officials -- had not been broken.

This view was echoed by defiant Mr Neil when we spoke to him.

"These claims are clearly nonsense," he said. "There was no breach
of the code."

A motion of no confidence was raised in the Scottish Parliament by
Labour's Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing Neil
Findlay.  The motion has been supported by a total of 34 Labour
MSPs, including John Pentland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Managers Jailed for Fibro Deaths
-------------------------------------------------
IOL News reported that an Italian court issued jail sentences
ranging from 4 to 9-and-a-half years for 27 former managers of the
ILVA steelworks, blaming them for contributing to the deaths of 31
workers through exposure to asbestos.

The harshest convictions were meted out to public sector managers
Sergio Noce and Giovanbattista Spallanzani, who led the firm --
the largest steelworks in Europe, based in the southern city of
Taranto -- before its privatization in 1995.

Emilio, the patriarch of the Riva family who bought ILVA from the
state, was one of the defendants but he died on April 30 aged 88.
His son Fabio, a fugitive who is resisting extradition attempts
from Britain, was given a six-year jail term.

The rulings can be appealed. In Italy jail sentences are normally
not executed until a final verdict. Fabio Riva is embroiled in
separate legal cases concerning the breach of environmental laws
and large scale financial fraud.

His family still owns ILVA, but the government has taken over its
running, in a bid to safeguard the jobs of the 13 000 people who
work there.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Led to Death of Former Electrician
---------------------------------------------------------
Cornish Guardian reported that a Newquay, England, man who died at
home aged 82 had been exposed to asbestos throughout his career,
an inquest heard.  Retired electrician Michael Brendan O'Connor,
of Towan Blystra Road Newquay, died on January 6, but had been
diagnosed with a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma in 2012.

In a statement made by Mr O'Connor after his diagnosis in
September 2012 he said: "I often had to square it [asbestos] up
and cut it back with a hack saw. I was exposed to a significant
amount of dust."  The inquest heard that Mr O'Connor had suffered
from a persistent cough and had received medical treatment for a
number of conditions relating to his lungs.

Assistant coroner for Cornwall Andrew Cox said there had been
"evidence of occupational exposure to asbestos" during Mr
O'Connor's employment for "several different companies."

Mr Cox recorded a verdict of industrial disease -- that being
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LSU Studio Art Bldg. Closes for Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Lane, writing for NOLA.com, reported that Louisiana State
University's embattled Studio Arts Building, the safety of which
has been subject of recent debate, will remain closed this week
and next for asbestos removal.

Picket signs touting the building's poor conditions appeared at
protests in April on campus and outside the Louisiana State
Capitol in the hands of art students and faculty who said they
felt unsafe working there.  Asbestos, lead paint, mold, jerry-
rigged plumbing, exposed wiring and crumbling infrastructure are
among their concerns.

Removal of the asbestos from hallway floors, steam pipe
insulation, basement pipes and floor tiles will cost LSU $28,000,
LSU Facility Service Associate Executive Director Dave Maharrey
said on May 23. Crews lifting the tiles will leave the concrete
floor beneath exposed, he said.

The facilities department spends approximately $200,000 a year on
maintenance of the building, LSU Office of Facility Services
Planning, Design and Construction Director Roger Husser has said.
No funds currently exist to execute the $15 million renovation
project plans that currently sit on the shelf ready to go. The
Studio Arts building renovation project has for years remained in
a queue to receive state funds, lately being passed over for
projects with private matches, such as the new new College of
Engineering building. The cost of the asbestos abatement, which
was performed through a contract with professionals equipped with
safety gear, can possibly be subtracted from the cost of the
renovation project.

The Arts Studio building was built in 1924 and is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places but hasn't seen a major
renovation. The university, however, has maintains it is safe. The
asbestos only becomes dangerous if it enters a powdery state in
which people might breathe, Maharrey said. Molly Gleason, a junior
sculpture student, though, said a combination of the contaminants
in the building sometimes cause her to feel dizzy, prompting her
to take regular five-minute breaks outside.

Maharrey said the asbestos abatement team went into the building
on May 20 and will continue the work "for a couple of weeks." He
said they chose to take on the project this week since classes let
out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Grammar Camp Nixed After Fibro Fears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Westcott, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a camp
for Year 3 students at Canberra Grammar School, in Australia, has
been cancelled after material containing asbestos was discovered
on the grounds of the Birrigai camp site.

In an email to parents, head of primary school Rosalie Reeves said
the decision to cancel the camp was made in May. It had been
scheduled for June.

"While we are aware that some students will be disappointed by
this news, the safety of our students and staff is the school's
main priority and we believe that this course of action is
necessary," she said.

"It is our absolute intention to still operate a Year 3 camp in
2014 and you will be notified of plans for that as they become
available."

A spokeswoman for Canberra Grammar School said she was unable to
provide any further information on the camp as the decision to
cancel had only just been made.

"Obviously students and teachers are our first priority," she
said.

A spokesperson for the department of Territory and Municipal
Services, which operates the Birrigai Outdoor School, confirmed a
small amount of asbestos had been found and removed from the
campsite earlier in the year and an asbestos management plan was
in place.  But she said the asbestos found had been bonded and
posed no immediate health risk to employees or to former campers.

"Bonded asbestos does not present an immediate health risk if it
remains undisturbed and in a good condition and the report from
Birrigai was that it remained undisturbed and was in a good
condition," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleckheaton Man Exposed to Fibro From Age 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bradford Telegraph and Argus reported that a man in Cleckheaton,
England, who worked in the brake lining industry has died from
industrial disease due to his contact with asbestos years ago, an
inquest has heard.

Kenneth Toulson, 87, of Hunsworth Lane, retired early aged 56 from
the town's British Belting and Asbestos Company where he started
at the age of 15.  But the asbestos he was exposed to during that
time eventually damaged his health, developing the asbestosis
which killed him, the Bradford hearing was told.

Apart from three years in the Royal Navy as part of his National
Service, Mr Toulson's working life was with the company spending
much time on the factory floor and becoming its group training
manager.

In a written statement made in 2011 when his health began to
deteriorate more he spoke of his concerns of coming into contact
with both white and blue asbestos and getting covered in the dust.

Recording a verdict that Mr Toulson's death on April 1 this year
was due to industrial disease, Assistant Bradford Coroner Oliver
Longstaff said: "He was significantly exposed to asbestos during
his working life from which, unfortunately as with so many
industrial workers from his generation, he contracted the disease
which is such a well-known risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solicitor Calls for Naval Ships to Be Checked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that a
solicitor has demanded all Naval Service ships in Ireland should
be immediately grounded and checked for asbestos.

Ernest Cantillon, who has represented dozens of asbestosis victims
over the past 30 years, said the potentially lethal substance has
been "banned in virtually all developed countries" and should be
removed from the vessels.

The Cork-based lawyer is representing 10 people who belive they
have been exposed to the substance, through their work on naval
ships, and will have an agonising wait, possibly of even up to 40
years, to see if they develop asbestosis.  It is believed upwards
of 100 Naval Service personnel and around 50 civilian workers may
have been exposed to asbestos dust on a number of the eight-strong
fleet or within workshops at the naval service headquarters in
Haulbowline, Co Cork.

"It's an awful disease and an awful death but very debilitating
before that," Mr Cantillon said.

Following a Supreme Court ruling in 2003, he said only people who
actually develop asbestosis can sue the State. Mr Cantillon said
there was no compensation for those who could suffer psychological
injury due to the fear that exposure might lead to their deaths.

The Naval Service had disclosed a specialist company had carried
out an asbestos audit on its ships in 2003 and declared they were
free of the substance.

However, Mr Cantillon said such a declaration was intriguing,
especially in light of the recent discoveries.

Meanwhile, PDFORRA (Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks
Representative Association) general secretary Gerry Rooney said
that "definitely a large portion of the fleet is in a critical
position".

He said EU directives were introduced in 2000 restricting the use
of asbestos and the Naval Service's last three acquired vessels
should be free of the substance.  They are LE Samuel Beckett which
has just gone into service; LE Rois¡n, commissioned in 1999; and
LE Niamh which was delivered in 2001.

However, out of five other vessels still in use and which predate
the EU regulation, asbestos was discovered in three of them.

LE Ciara and LE Orla remain locked down after asbestos was
detected a number of weeks ago.  Evidence of the substance has
been recorded twice in recent weeks on the LE Aoife which has now
returned to patrolling duties.

Her sister ship LE Aisling has not been checked yet but the LE
Eithne is confined to port following another asbestos scare. "An
initial examination of her drawings indicated an area of potential
concern. This area will be examined as a precaution and dealt with
in accordance with Health and Safety Authority guidelines if
deemed necessary," a Naval Service spokesman said.

Mr Rooney, meanwhile, said it was imperative the Naval Service
immediately train personnel in asbestos recognition and its safe
removal, especially in the event of a problem developing on a ship
100 miles or more out at sea.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Committee Asks Court to Amend Rule 2019 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants has asked a court overseeing
bankruptcy proceedings for asbestos defendant Garlock Sealing
Technologies to amend its Rule 2019 order so that it includes
provisions on who has access to the filings.

In the May 16 motion filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, the representative group of
asbestos claimants asked the court to amend its ruling mandating
that the movants may not transfer the Rule 2019 documents to other
entities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former WR Grace Worker's Rep Lacked Standing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Jeremiah Shea of the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana issued an order on April 8, 2014, denying jurisdiction
over the case captioned CRISTITA MOREAU, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Edwin Moreau Petitioner, v.
TRANSPORTATION INS. CO. Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2013-3216
(MTWCC), holding that the petitioner has no standing to pursue the
action against the respondent, accordingly, the Court has no
jurisdiction over the matter.  In this case, petitioner, acting as
representative of the estate of Edwin Moreau, sought payment from
Transportation of medical bills incurred by Edwin who suffered and
died from an occupational disease arising out of and in the course
of his employment with W.R. Grace & Co.  A full-text copy of Judge
Shea's Order is available at http://is.gd/d18uolfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Wrongful Discharge Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert O'Brien filed a lawsuit against Bellevue Public Schools
claiming that he was wrongfully discharged from his employment as
a carpenter with the school district because he reported
violations of state and federal regulations pertaining to the
demolition and disposal of asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials.  The district court for Sarpy County granted summary
judgment in favor of BPS.  The Court of Appeals of Nebraska
affirmed in an opinion dated April 29, 2014.

The case is ROBERT O'BRIEN, APPELLANT, v. BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
APPELLEE, NO. A-12-843, (Neb. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/fQ5e70from Leagle.com.

Jeremy C. Jorgenson, Esq., for appellant.  Laura K. Essay, Kevin
R. McManaman, and Michael W. Khalili, of Knudsen, Berkheimer,
Richardson & Endacott, L.L.P., for appellee.

Knudsen Berkheimer professionals may be reached at:

         Laura K. Essay, Esq.
         Kevin R. McManaman, Esq.
         Michael W. Khalili, Esq.
         KNUDSEN, BERKHEIMER, RICHARDSON & ENDACOTT, L.L.P.
         3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 200
         Lincoln, NE 68502
         Tel: 402-475-7011


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in Mixers' PD Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case styled MARIA OLIVARES, et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. MOREHOUSE-COWLES, et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. B245407 (Cal. App)., filed a product liability
action against five defendants that manufactured commercial
machines allegedly designed to mix chemicals used to produce
electrical insulation.  The Plaintiffs' complaint asserted that,
during the mixing process, the machines caused the chemicals to
emit harmful airborne toxic particles.  Several defendants moved
for judgment on the pleadings, arguing they could not be held
liable for injuries caused by defective chemical products that
were used in conjunction with their mixing machines.  The trial
court granted the motion without leave to amend.  The Court of
Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, in an
opinion dated April 21, 2014, reversed, concluding that the
plaintiffs' complaint adequately states claims for strict
liability and negligence.  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/gi2DXcfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs and Appellants are represented by:

         Gregory Stamos, Esq.
         David A. Rosen, Esq.
         Brian J. Ramsey, Esq.
         Erin M. Beranek, Esq.
         ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS LLP
         12800 Center Court Dr., Suite 500
         Cerritos, CA 90703
         Tel: 562-606-0348
         Fax: 562-436-6157

Timothy E. Metzinger, Esq. -- tem@ppplaw.com -- at Price, Postel &
Parma, for Defendant and Respondent Morehouse-Cowles.

Douglas G. Wah, Esq. -- dwah@foleymansfield.com -- Deborah M.D.
Gustafson, Esq. -- dgustafson@foleymansfield.com -- and Holly E.
Acevedo, Esq. -- hacevedo@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley &
Mansfield, for Defendant and Respondent Littleford Day.

Kevin J. McNaughton, Esq. -- mcnaughtonk@slmclaw.com -- and
Katrina J. Valencia, Esq. -- valenciak@slmclaw.com -- at Schaffer,
Lax, McNaughton & Chen, for Defendant and Respondent Myers
Engineering.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Remands "Radosta" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana issued an order and reasons dated April 24,
2014, granting the motion to remand filed by plaintiffs Dale
Radosta, et al., in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled ROSEMARY RADOSTA, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., ET AL. SECTION:
"A" (3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0500 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/otkeZ4from Leagle.com.

Rosemary Radosta, Dale Radosta, Don Radosta, Wayne Radosta, Mark
Radosta, Jerome Radosta, Glenn Radosta, and Frank Radosta,
Plaintiffs, represented by:

         Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
         Jason Zachary Landry, Esq.
         Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
         Neil Franz Nazareth, Esq.
         Roshawn H. Donahue, Esq.
         Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
         MARTZELL & BICKFORD
         338 Lafayette Street
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Fax: 504-581-7635

Lorillard Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Steven W.
Copley, Esq. -- scopley@gordonarata.com -- Donna Phillips
Currault, Esq. -- dcurrault@gordonarata.com -- and Nina Wessel
English, Esq. -- nenglish@gordonarata.com -- at Gordon, Arata,
McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq. --
suek@spsr-law.com -- Douglas Kinler, Esq. -- dkinler@spsr-law.com
-- James R. Guidry, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr-law.com -- Louis Oliver
Oubre, Esq. -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- and Stephen Jared Austin,
Esq. -- stephena@spsr-law.com -- at Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Esq., Jamie M Zanovec, Esq., and Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq.,
at Willingham Fultz & Cougill; and Diane Sweezer Davis, Esq. --
DDavis@ffllp.com -- at Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP,

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anne Elizabeth
Medo, Esq. -- amedo@hmhlp.com -- David C Bach, Esq. --
dbach@hmhlp.com -- Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Esq. --
elassus@hmhlp.com -- and Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Esq. --
jgarvey@hmhlp.com -- at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Denies Inmates' Bid to Compel Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the civil rights lawsuit styled William L. Ridenour and Tommy
Lee Brown, Plaintiffs, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-00493
(S.D. Ohio), under which the plaintiffs alleged to have been
exposed to asbestos while incarcerated, Magistrate Judge Mark R.
Abel of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order dated April 14, 2014,
denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery.  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/fF6nEKfrom
Leagle.com.

William L Ridenour, Plaintiff, Pro Se, and Tommy Lee Brown,
Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; Chillicothe
Correctional Institution; Robin Knab, Warden, In her Individual
and Official Capacities; Tim Brunsman, Former Warden, In his
Individual and Official Capacities; Leah Bobb-Itt, Deputy Warden
of Operations, In his Individual and Official Capacities; Brian
Wittrup, Deputy Warden of Operations, In his Individual and
Official Capacities; Drew Hildebrand, Deputy Warden of
Administration, In his Individual and Official Capacities; Steve
Clever, Major, In his Individual and Official Capacities; Steve
Brooks, In his Individual and Official Capacities; Kenny Black, In
his Individual and Official Capacities; Daylen Burton, In his
Individual and Official Capacities; and John/Jane Does times 100,
In their Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants,
represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's
Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California issued an order dated April 18,
2014, dismissing the action styled CHARLES SILAS, Plaintiff, v.
JOHN W. ROLHFING, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-00010 DAD P
(E.D. Calif.), for the plaintiff's failure to state a claim.  The
Plaintiff is a state prisoner who alleges asbestos exposure while
incarcerated.  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/inUVc0from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Finds Removal of "Totten" Suit Proper
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis of the United States District Court, N.D.
Illinois, Eastern Division, refused to remand the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit styled WILLIAM TOTTEN, Plaintiff, v. CRANE
CO., et al., Defendants, NO. 13 C 8157 (N.D. Ill.), after finding
that removal of the case is proper because Defendant Crane Co. has
satisfied all four requirements of the removal statute.  A full-
text copy of Judge Ellis' Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/k9ylgafrom Leagle.com.

William Totten, Plaintiff, represented by:

         William Robert Fahey, Esq.
         Katharine Crane Byrne, Esq.
         Robert John Cooney, Jr., Esq.
         Timothy G. Martin, Esq.
         COONEY & CONWAY
         120 N Lasalle Street, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60602-2415
         Tel: 888-875-7899

Air & Liquid Systems, Inc., Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Tobin J
Taylor, Esq. -- ttaylor@heylroyster.com -- Daniel J. Cheely, Esq.
-- dcheely@heylroyster.com -- and Heidi E. Ruckman, Esq. --
hruckman@heylroyster.com -- at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jacob D. Sawyer, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, Pllp.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel Michael Finer, Esq. -- dfiner@smsm.com -- at Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd.

BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc., as successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley Charles Nahrstadt, Esq. --
bcn@lipelyons.com -- and Frank Tung, Esq. -- ft@lipelyons.com --
at Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel J. Cheely, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jacob D. Sawyer, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, Pllp.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tobin J Taylor, Esq., Daniel J. Cheely, Esq., and
Heidi E Ruckman, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Catherine
Lynn Carlson, Esq. -- cathie.carlson@guntymccarthy.com -- and
James Paul Kasper, Esq. -- jamie.kasper@guntymccarthy.com -- at
Gunty & McCarthy Law Offices; and Dawn Michele Beery, Esq., at K&L
Gates LLP.

DAP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Anna Gonis O'Connor, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge,
Singer & Mahoney.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Daniel Michael Finer, Esq., at Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney Ltd.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Anna Gonis O'Connor, Esq. --
agoconnor@smsm.com -- at Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney.

H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Esq., Daniel J. Cheely, Esq., and Heidi E
Ruckman, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Esq., Daniel J. Cheely, Esq., and Heidi E
Ruckman, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael Thomas Antikainen, Esq. -- mantikainen@heplerbroom.com
-- and Kimberly Danielle Musick, Esq. -- kmusick@heplerbroom.com -
- at HeplerBroom, LLC.

ITT Industries, Inc., individually and as Successor-in-Interest to
Bell & Gossett Pump Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq. -- jrogers@mcguirewoods.com
-- and Undray Wilks, Esq. -- uwilks@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire
Woods LLP.

Mueller Company, Defendant, represented by Jacob D. Sawyer, Esq.,
at Foley & Mansfield, Pllp.

Riley Power, Inc., f/k/a Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by Tobin J Taylor, Esq., Daniel J.
Cheely, Esq., and Heidi E Ruckman, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker
& Allen.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael Thomas Antikainen, Esq., and Kimberly Danielle Musick,
Esq., at HeplerBroom, LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tobin J
Taylor, Esq., at Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C.

Union Carbide Corporation, individually and f/k/a Union Carbide
Chemicals & Plastics Co.,Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tobin J Taylor, Esq., Daniel J. Cheely, Esq., Heidi
E Ruckman, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Esq., Daniel J. Cheely, Esq., and Heidi E
Ruckman, Esq., at Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Gillenwater" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Charles Lee Gillenwater, II, was charged with two counts
of transmitting threatening interstate communications and one
count of transmitting threatening communications by United States
mail.  Gillenwater once worked on the renovation of the Flamingo
Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. Gillenwater believes that he and
thousands of others were exposed to asbestos during that
renovation. He also believes that the government allowed the
exposure to occur and helped the hotel cover it up. And
Gillenwater believes that government and hotel officials came
after him when he tried to reveal the exposure and cover up.
After determining that Gillenwater was not competent to stand
trial, the district court authorized the government to medicate
Gillenwater involuntarily to render him competent to face the
charges against him.

While recognizing the important interests at stake for both the
government and Gillenwater, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in an opinion dated April 11, 2014, concluded that
the district court did not err in authorizing Gillenwater's
involuntary medication, thus affirming the district court's
decision.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CHARLES LEE GILLENWATER, II, AKA Charles Lee Gillenwater,
Defendant-Appellant, NOS. 12-30379, 13-30284 (9th Cir.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/dwYRbRfrom
Leagle.com.

Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

         Frank L. Cikutovich, Esq.
         STILEY & CIKUTOVICH, PLLC
         1408 West Broadway Avenue
         Spokane, WA 99201-1902
         Tel: 509-323-9000
         Fax: 509-324-9029

Michael C. Ormsby, United States Attorney, and Timothy J. Ohms
(argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Spokane, Washington,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC's Bid to Dismiss "Vantosh" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied defendant Union Carbide Corporation's motion to dismiss an
asbestos personal injury action captioned RUTH VANTOSH and HAROLD
VANTOSH, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190439/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), for summary judgment.
A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's decision and order dated
April 1, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/OxXfP6from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Vedros" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana the denied a motion to remand the
asbestos personal injury lawsuit captioned VEDROS, ET AL v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL., Section: J, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.), after determining that the case is
similar to several 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 Judgee
Barbier's order and reasons dated April 24, 2014, is availale at
http://is.gd/6gio8Ufrom Leagle.com.

Sally Gros Vedros, Lori Vedros Kravet, Valerie Vedros White, and
Gerald Vedros, Plaintiffs, 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., Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq., and
Erin Helen Boyd, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP; and Gary Allen Lee,
Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq.,
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., at 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., and Jennifer H.
McLaughlin, Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC; and Louis
Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant and Third Party
Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates,
Lee, Esq., David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles,
Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP; Brian C. Bossier, Esq.,
Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq., Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III,
Esq., and Erin Helen Boyd, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP; and Tracy
C. Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- at Liskow & Lewis.

J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant and Third Party Plaintiff,
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., and Jonathan Paul Hilbun,
Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC; and Louis Oliver
Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward T. Hayes, Esq., Lauren Fajoni Bartlett,
Esq., and Marc E. Devenport, Esq., at 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; Diane Sweezer Davis, Esq., at Funderburk Finderburk Courtois,
LLP; and Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Esq., at Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP,

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Rescission Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Selwyn D.J. Vos brought a pro se appeal from the
judgment entered in favor of respondents Kenneth Calhoon and his
employer, Golden West Real Estate, Inc., after a trial court
sustained Calhoon's demurrer to Vos's third amended complaint
without leave to amend.  Vo's second amended complaint contains
six causes of action, the gist of which is that Calhoon
participated in an "illegal sale" of the property to Vos as it
failed to disclose or intentionally concealed that the real
property lies on an earthquake fault line; the property contains
naturally occurring asbestos; and 25 of the 40 acres consist of
Native American archaeological sites.  As a result, the property
cannot be developed, and Vos has been exposed to asbestos and the
corresponding danger and fear of mesothelioma.  The second amended
complaint seeks rescission of the contract by which Vos purchased
the property, reformation of his title to the property, injunctive
relief, and money damages.  Because Vos has failed to provide an
adequate record on appeal, the Court of Appeals of California,
Third District, Placer, cannot conclude the trial court erred.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment.

The case is SELWYN D.J. VOS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KENNETH
CALHOON et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. C070647 (Cal.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 3, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/40LbaHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Whalen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos products-liability action styled ROBERT WHALEN and
LINDA WHALEN, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, NO. C 14-00436 WHA (N.D. Calif.), one of many
defendants moves to dismiss and moves to strike portions of the
complaint.  Judge William Alsup of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion to
dismiss and denied as moot the motion to strike.  A full-text copy
of Judge Alsup's Order dated April 3, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/QXhd5Ffrom Leagle.com.

Robert T Whalen and Linda Whalen, Plaintiffs, represented by:

         Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Esq.
         BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
         Novato, California
         Tel: 415-895-2669
         Fax: 415-898-1247

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Charles Todd
Sheldon, Esq. -- csheldon@wfbm.com -- Derek S. Johnson, Esq. --
djohnson@wfbm.com -- Dylan Daniel Rudolph, Esq. --
drudolph@wfbm.com -- and Katherine Paige Gardiner, Esq. --
kgardiner@wfbm.com -- at Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Brendan John Tuohy, Esq. --
brendan.tuohy@klgates.com -- Michele Cherie Barnes, Esq. --
michele.barnes@klgates.com -- and Peter Edward Soskin, Esq. --
peter.soskin@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin Douglas Jamison,
Esq. -- kjamison@pondnorth.com -- Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Esq. --
krivera@pondnorth.com -- and Mary Katherine Back, Esq. --
mback@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP.

Nibco Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory Scott Rosse, Esq.,
and Edward R. Hugo, Esq., at Brydon Hugo & Parker.

Fisher Controls International LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary
D. Sharp, Esq., Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Esq., and Elizabeth Catherine
Sears, Esq., at Foley Mansfield, P.L.L.P.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Carla Lynn
Crochet, Esq. -- ccrochet@prindlelaw.com -- and Arpi Galfayan,
Esq. -- agalfayan@prindlelaw.com -- at Prindle, Amaro, Goetz,
Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham,
Esq. -- james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- at Tucker Ellis LLP.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy P.
Glazier, Esq., Laura Patricia Yee, Esq., and Brian Thomas Clark,
Esq., Knott & Glazier LLLP.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward R.
Hugo, Esq., Paul M. Bessette, Esq., Thomas J Moses, Esq., Charles
S. Park, Esq., at Brydon Hugo & Parker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Bid to Junk "Babravich" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
issued a decision and order dated May 19, 2014, denying the
motions by the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada
Inc. for summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled RICHARD BABRAVICH and BONNIE BABRAVICH, Plaintiffs,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
104028/00, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), after finding that
there was no evidence submitted to show that it is not possible
that asbestos-containing sheet gasket material produced by
Goodyear Tire continued to exist within the stream of commerce
even after Goodyear halted production of the material in 1969.  A
full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/FIhxdQfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss " Chiaravallotti" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York, issued
a decision and order dated May 19, 2014, granting Courter &
Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit captioned ROSANN CHIARAVALLOTTI,
as Administratrix for the Estate of SAM CHIARAVALLOTTI, and ROSANN
CHIARAVALLOTTI and MARK CHIARAVALLOTTI, as Co-Executors for the
Estate of ANN CHIARAVALLOTTI, Plaintiffs, v. A.C. & S. INC., et
al. Defendants, DOCKET NO. 118278/99, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/VpRUhXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois dismissed without prejudice
defendant Warden Randy Davis in the civil rights action styled
MICHAEL CORRAL, No. K57156, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RANDY DAVIS,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-00518-MJR (S.D. Ill.), and subsequently
dismissed without prejudice the complaint for failure to state a
relief upon which relief can be granted.  Corral, among other
things, complains about being exposed to asbestos while
incarcerated.  A full-text copy of Judge Reagan's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/S0D5oRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cummins' Insurance Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs D. Cummins Corporation and D. Cummins Holding LLC filed
an action in California Superior Court against Defendants United
States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and United States Fire
Insurance Company seeing declaratory judgment regarding the terms
of Cummins Corp.'s insurance contracts.  Cummins Corp., formerly
known as Valley Asbestos Company, was an installer of insulation
products.  Some of the products it installed contained asbestos,
and it now faces hundreds of asbestos bodily injury lawsuits.
Cummins Corp. is insured by Defendants.  Defendants removed the
action to federal court.  Now the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the matter to state court.

Judge Samuel Conti of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order dated May 28,
2014, a full-text copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Mf36rRfrom Leagle.com, granted the Plaintiffs'
motion and remanded the matter to the California Superior Court.
Judge Conti's May 28 order follows a May 12 order, a full-text
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1NyTU2from Leagle.com,
rescheduling the initial case management conference to Aug. 8,
2014.

The case is D. CUMMINS CORPORATION and D. CUMMINS HOLDING LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, UNITED
STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, CASE
NO. 14-CV-935-SC (N.D. Calif.).

D. Cummins Corporation and D. Cummins Holding LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants,
represented by Jeffrey Scott Raskin, Esq. --
jraskin@morganlewis.com -- Paul Anton Zevnik, Esq. --
pzevnik@morganlewis.com -- and Peter Francis McAweeney, Esq. --
pmcaweeney@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Defendant,
represented by Ronald David Kent, Esq. -- ronald.kent@dentons.com
-- and Susan Michele Walker, Esq. -- susan.walker@dentons.com --
at Dentons US LLP.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant and Counter
Claimant, represented by Sara M. Thorpe, Esq. --
sthorpe@nicolaidesllp.com -- and Seth J. Manfredi, Esq. --
smanfredi@nicolaidesllp.com -- at Nicolaides Fink Thorpe
Michaelides Sullivan LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Haver" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Relying on the holding in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206
Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), the trial court sustained a demurrer
without leave to amend in a wrongful death action based on
premises liability brought by the survivors of a woman who died of
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from her
husband's work clothes.  The survivors argue that Campbell is
distinguishable on its facts, or in the alternative, it was
incorrectly decided.  They also contend that Kesner v. Superior
Court (May 15, 2014, No. A136378) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Kesner), a
case decided after oral argument in this appeal, compels a finding
of error.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Five, in an opinion dated June 3, 2014, rejected the argument that
Campbell, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 15, is distinguishable on its
facts and concluded that Campbell's holding, which is consistent
with the majority view in the nation on the issue, correctly
applies California law.  The opinion in Kesner expressly declined
to question the holding in Campbell, and the cause of action in
Kesner is for products liability, not premises liability, as in
Campbell and the instant case, the Court of Appeals said.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's
decision.

The case is JOSHUA HAVER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
BNSF RAILWAY CO., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B246527 (Cal.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/MZZsTmfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs and Appellants are represented by:

         Paul C. Cook, Esq.
         Michael B. Gurien, Esq.
         WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
         222 North Sepulveda Boulevard
         Suite 1900
         El Segundo, California 90245
         Tel: 310-414-8146
         Fax: 310-414-8156

Selim Mounedji, Esq., at The Sims Law Firm, for Defendant and
Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Allowed to Subpoena Bankruptcy Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2014, Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DONALD
WILLIS and VIOLA WILLIS, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV744-BTM (DHB)(S.D. Calif.), filed a
Motion to Quash Defendant John Crane Inc.'s Subpoenas to
Bankruptcy Trusts requesting all correspondence between the trusts
and Mr. Willis relating to claims, settlements, requests,
documents or files.  Defendants John Crane and Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation have opposed the motion and the Plaintiff has
filed a Reply.  Having considered the arguments of the parties and
the applicable law, Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, and
modified John Crane's subpoenas to the Bankruptcy Trusts.  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated June 2, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/5BNK8Sfrom Leagle.com.

Viola Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Lance Randall Stewart,
Esq., and William Y. Sung, Esq., at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik &
Associates, LLP.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell,
Esq., at Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Crane, Co., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Stephen
P. Farkas, Esq. -- stephen.farkas@klgates.com -- and Bradley
William Gunning, Esq. -- brad.gunning@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates
LLP; and Kathleen L. Beiermeister, Esq. --
kbeiermeister@meagher.com -- at Meagher and Geer PLLP.

CBS Corporation, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to
Westinghouse Electric Corporation), Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin D Jamison, Esq., Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Esq., and Previn A
Wick, Esq. -- pwick@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles Park, Esq., at Brydon Hugon & Parker.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Russell, Esq. -- arussell@hptylaw.com -- Julia A. Gowin,
Esq. -- jgowin@hptylaw.com -- and Michael B. Giaquinto, Esq. --
mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young
LLP.

Metalcad Insulation Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradford J. DeJardin, Esq., Courtney Vaudreuil,
Esq., and Mary T. McKelvey, Esq., at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
John F. Hughes, Esq., at Law Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Meghan Phillips,
Esq. -- meghan.phillips@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Fulwider" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order dated
May 15, 2014, dismissing without prejudice Foseco, Inc. and Young
Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., as defendants in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned RALPH LEWIS
FULWIDER, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS, CORP., as Successor-
by-merger, to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
13-CV-1220-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/oAqyPffrom Leagle.com.

Ralph Lewis Fulwider, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant, represented
by:

         Allyson Michelle Romani, Esq.
         SHRADER & ASSOCIATES LLP
         22 A Ginger Creek Parkway
         Glen Carbon, Illinois 62034
         Tel: 618-659-0001

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., and Anita M.
Kidd, Esq., 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., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

AO Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by Curtis R. Picou,
Esq., at Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic LLC.

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

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

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dayna L. Johnson, Esq. -- dlj@greensfelder.com -- at
Greensfelder, Hemker et al.

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

AWC 1997 Corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Page,
Esq. -- david.page@guntymccarthy.com -- at Gunty & McCarthy.

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

Beazer East Inc, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, 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
-- 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:

         Donald W. Ward, Esq.
         Gary L. Smith, Esq.
         Justin Andrew Welply, Esq.
         Mary Ann Hatch, Esq.
         HERZOG, CREBS et al.
         St. Louis, Missouri
         Tel: 314-231-6700
         Fax: 314-231-4656

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

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth M.
Nussbaumer, Esq., Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq., and Thomas L. Orris,
Esq., 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.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

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

CBS Corporation, a Deleware Corporation, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq., and Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

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. -- mhudgens@otmblaw.com -- at
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.

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

Columbia Boiler Company,Defendant and  Cross Claimant, 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
-- and Carl J. Geraci, Esq., 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.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

         Bryan L. Skelton, Esq.
         William B. Starnes, II, Esq.
         REED, ARMSTRONG et al.
         115 North Buchanan
         Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
         Tel: 618-656-0257
         FAX 618-692-4416

Dap, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, Esq. --
wirwin@smsm.com -- at Segal, McCambridge et al.

Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson,
Esq. -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Edward M. Casmere, Esq. --
ecasmere@schiffhardin.com -- and Matthew J. Fischer, Esq. --
mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff, Hardin et al.

Dewitt Products Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Edward E. Johnston, Esq., 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, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq. -- bveath@bjpc.com
-- 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, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

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

Flowserve Corporation, formerly known as The Duriron Company,
Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

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

Fluor Constructors International Inc, Defendant, represented
by Bryan L. Skelton, Esq., and William B. Starnes, II, Esq., at
Reed, Armstrong et al..

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton,
Esq., and William B. Starnes, II, Esq., at Reed, Armstrong et al..

Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Esq., and William B. Starnes, II, Esq., at Reed,
Armstrong et al..

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Esq., and William B. Starnes, II, Esq., at Reed,
Armstrong et al..

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

Foseco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., and Carl J. Geraci, 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., and Carl J.
Geraci, 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 and Cross Claimant,
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 and Cross Claimant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

Grimes Aerospace Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Derek Ruzicka, Esq.
-- ruzicka@pspclaw.com -- and William S. Thomas, Esq. --
thomas@pspclaw.com -- at Pitzer Snodgrass PC.

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., and Carl
J. Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Homasote Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant represented
by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- and
Matthew J. Morris, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com
-- Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones, Esq., at
Polsinelli PC.

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq.,
at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Hyster Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Esq., and Derek Ruzicka, Esq.,
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., and Carl J.
Geraci, 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., and Carl
J. Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., and Carl J.
Geraci, 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 and Cross Claimant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

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

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

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael R. Dauphin, 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.

KCG, Inc,, Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Esq., at Gunty
& McCarthy.

Kvaerner U.S., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., 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, Cross
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq.,
and 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.

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Ryan T. Barke, Esq. -- rtb@greensfelder.com -- at
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC.

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Melanie E. Riley, Esq. --
mriley@sandbergphoenix.com -- at Sandberg, Phoenix et al.; and
Michael Patrick McGinley, Esq., at Lashly & Baer PC.

Metallo Gasket Co., Defendant, represented by Karen E Bettcher,
Esq. -- karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson, Elser 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.

Motion Control Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Mueller Steam Specialty Company, a Division of Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by David J. Page, Esq., at Gunty & McCarthy.

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

Navistar International, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., 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.

Pecora Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by David J. Page, Esq., at Gunty & McCarthy.

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.

Research-Cottrell, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David J. Page, Esq., at Gunty & McCarthy.

RIC-WIL, Inc., 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, Cross
Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Esq., at Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Rogers Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

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., Kathleen Ann Hardee, 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, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al.

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

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Marley
Cooling Tower, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant 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., individually and for its
subsidiary Loftus Furnace Company, 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., at Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

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

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Donald W. Ward, Esq., Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin
Andrew Welply, 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., and Carl J.
Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant and 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 R. Dauphin, Esq., and Michael W. Newport,
Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin Andrew
Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al.

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

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

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin Andrew
Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al.

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., and William R.
Irwin, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Blessing" Suit Transferred to Iowa Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company has moved to transfer
venue the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled JUDITH
L. BLESSING, Individually and as a Representative of the Estate of
Gary L. Blessing, Deceased; Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 4:14CV3023 (D. Neb.), to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City
Division.  Union Pacific argues a Sioux City trial location would
be the most convenient for the parties and witnesses and would
better serve the interests of justice.  Magistrate Judge Cheryl R.
Zwart of the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska, in a June 4, 2014, memorandum and order, granted the
motion to transfer.  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/AoTjNFfrom Leagle.com.

Judith L. Blessing, Plaintiff, represented by:

         J. Kirkland Sammons, Esq.
         Jason J. Ruen, Esq.
         SAMMONS BERRY, P.C.
         4606 Cypress Creek Pkwy, Suite 600
         Houston, TX 77069
         Tel: 713-425-7200
         Fax: 713-425-7210

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by
Anastasia Wagner, Esq. -- awagner@ldmlaw.com -- and William M.
Lamson, Jr., Esq. -- wlamson@ldmlaw.com -- at LAMSON, DUGAN LAW
FIRM; and Karen M. Volkman, Esq. -- kmvolkman@hptylaw.com -- and
Tracy J. Cowan, Esq. -- tcowan@hptylaw.com -- at HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Suit Against Dissolved Cos. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1981, Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc., purchased all of
the assets of Camellia Valley Supply, Inc.'s business, including
underground pipe manufactured and sold by Camellia Valley Supply,
Inc., as well as the exclusive right to the Camellia Valley Supply
name. The sale was memorialized in a written Agreement for Sale of
Personal Property.

Twenty-five years later, Pacific Coast was sued in nine separate
lawsuits alleging personal injury, wrongful death, and other
claims resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing pipes sold,
distributed, or provided by Camellia Valley Supply.  By that time,
Camellia Valley Supply, Inc., had long since dissolved as a
corporation and, therefore, Pacific Coast tendered its defense to
and requested indemnification from The Hanover Insurance Company,
the entity identified in the Agreement as Camellia Valley Supply,
Inc.'s insurance carrier.  When Hanover rejected the tender,
Pacific Coast filed a complaint against Hanover, as well as
Camellia Valley Supply, Inc., and its successor, CV Supply, Inc.,
also a dissolved corporation to enforce the defense and indemnity
provisions in the Agreement. After the Complaint was filed,
Pacific Coast was named in two additional lawsuits.  Pacific Coast
tendered those new actions to Hanover as well, but received no
response.

In the meantime, Hanover successfully demurred to the Complaint.
Instead of amending its complaint, Pacific Coast dismissed Hanover
without prejudice and proceeded against Camellia Valley by way of
a first amended complaint.  Following a one-day bench trial, the
court found in favor of Pacific Coast and entered judgment against
Camellia Valley in the amount of $829,202.57 for defense and
indemnity costs related to the Underlying and Pending Actions.

Camellia Valley appeals.  The Court of Appeals of California,
Third District, Sacramento, in an opinion dated June 4, 2014,
dismissed the appeal, after determining that they cannot reach and
resolve the merits of the issues raised on the appeal because
Camellia Valley and CV Supply, both dissolved California
corporations, are not represented by counsel properly retained on
the appeal.

The case is PACIFIC COAST BUILDING PRODUCTS, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. CAMELLIA VALLEY SUPPLY, INC., et al., Defendants
and Appellants, NO. C068584 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/GFOfC3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Affirms $250,000 Ruling in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving a diagnosis of mesothelioma, Russell Nix filed
suit against Union Carbide Corporation based on his exposure to
its asbestos products.  The jury returned a verdict for Nix on his
inadequate warning claim, awarding Nix $250,000 in compensatory
damages and $500,000 in punitive damages.  The trial court then
awarded Nix nearly $500,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
Aggrieved, Union Carbide appeals.  The Supreme Court of
Mississippi, on June 5, 2014, affirmed the jury's award of
compensatory damages, reversed the jury's award of punitive
damages, vacated the award of attorney's fees, and remanded the
case for a new trial on punitive damages.

The case is UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, v. RUSSELL E. NIX, JR., AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL E. NIX, SR., NO. 2012-CA-01380-
SCT (Miss.).  A full-text copy of the Decision, penned by Justice
King, is available at http://is.gd/4FyU9Lfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Illegal Suspension Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellant Sheila A. Wood sued her former employer, the
Bethlehem Area Vocational-Technical School, alleging that her work
conditions were changed and that she was suspended without pay,
then fired, in retaliation for speaking out on a matter of public
concern.  According to the complaint, Wood alleged that she became
concerned with asbestos exposure on the BAVTS campus and in a
BAVTS project home.  She alleged that the asbestos exposure was a
matter of public concern that attracted local news-media
attention.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed Wood's complaint in part, with prejudice,
retaining some of the claims against two of the individual
defendants.  The parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining
claims to permit immediate appeal.  Wood appeals only the
dismissal of the Monell claim against the BAVTS, the dismissal of
the supervisory-liability claim against three of the individual
defendants, and the dismissal of the Section 1983 conspiracy claim
against all individual defendants.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit in an opinion dated June 4, 2014, found no basis
for reversal and affirmed.

The case is SHEILA A. WOOD, Appellant, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS,
Individually and in his capacity as executive director of the
Bethlehem Area Vocational-Technical School; DR. IRENE GAVIN,
Individually and in her capacity as Supervisor of Instruction-
Principal of the Bethlehem Area Vocational-Technical School;
SANDRA KLEIN, Individually and in her capacity as Supervisor of
Lifelong Learning-Technology of the Bethlehem Area Vocational-
Technical School; JOHN HANEY, Individually and in his capacity as
Technology Coordinator of the Bethlehem Area Vocational-Technical
School; SHARON STACK, Individually and in her capacity as
Chairperson of the Joint Operating Committee of the Bethlehem Area
Vocational-Technical School; BETHLEHEM AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL
SCHOOL; BETHLEHEM AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL AUTHORITY;
BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; NORTHAMPTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT;
SAUCON VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOHN JANE DOES 1-X, NO. 13-3908
(3rd. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/PkxcLEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Leave to Appeal Denied in NY Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, on May 8, 2014, denied leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeal in the case IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to HERLIHY, v. A.F. SUPPLY CORP. -- MUNACO PACKING &
RUBBER CO., INC. OF SOUTH CAROLINA, MOTION NO. M-774 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/RLHrm0from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Tort Claims v. Placid Oil Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Williams and his children brought tort claims against Placid
Oil Company in connection with the allegedly asbestos-related
illness and death of his wife.  The bankruptcy court granted
Placid's motion for summary judgment, and the district court
affirmed.  The U.S. Court of of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on
May 27, 2014, affirmed, after concluding that the Williamses were
unknown creditors whose prepetition claims were discharged by
Placid's constructive notice and that Placid's notice was not
substantively deficient.

JIMMY WILLIAMS, SR.; JIMMY WILLIAMS, JR.; DALTON GLEN WILLIAMS;
JEANETTE WILLIAMS SHOWS; GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS PEACOCK, Individually
and on Behalf of the Deceased, Myra Williams, Appellants, v.
PLACID OIL COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 12-11120 (5th Cir.).  A full-
text copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/IyVNmHfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Kelly-Moore Insurance Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., filed an insurance
coverage action against one of its insurers, Defendant National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, alleging that the
Defendant has a duty under six insurance policies to defend and
indemnify it against claims by persons alleging injury caused by
exposure to asbestos from the Plaintiff's products.  The Plaintiff
alleges causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of
contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
claim for punitive damages for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Breach
of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, pursuant to Rules
12(b)(6) and 12(c).  Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found
the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and
vacated the hearing on the matter.  Having considered the parties'
papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, the
magistrate judge denied the Defendant's Motion.

The case is KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-CV-01797-MEJ (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/G04XCVfrom Leagle.com.

Kelly Moore Paint Company, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by:

         Monika Pleyer Lee, Esq.
         THE LEE LAW OFFICE
         PO Box 45947
         Omaha, NE 68145

            -- and --

         Philip Landsdale Pillsbury, Jr., Esq.
         PILLSBURY & COLEMAN LLP
         San Francisco, CA
         Tel: 415-433-8000
         Fax: 415-433-4816

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant,
represented by Sara M. Thorpe, Esq. -- sthorpe@nicolaidesllp.com
-- at Nicolaides Fink Thorpe Michaelides Sullivan LLP.


                             *********

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  * * *