CAR_Public/140620.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 122

                             Headlines


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Gets $3.2MM Award in Price-Fixing Class Action
ARIZONA: Class Certification in Inmates' Healthcare Suit Upheld
AVERUS INC: Faces "Avendano" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
AVX CORP: Accrues $1MM for Case Related to South Carolina Factory
BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Rabbat" Class Suit to C.D. California

BB ONE: Faces "Cortez" Action for Failing to Pay Workers Overtime
BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Renna Suit Says
BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Claims
BROOKFIELD ASSET: Lanny McDonald Named Representative Plaintiff
CARBONITE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Data Loss

CATERPILLAR INC: "Tri-City" Suit Included in Engine Products MDL
CHINA CERAMICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
COMSCORE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action for $14 Million
ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Approval of Accord in Athletes' Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in California

FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit
FERRARA CANDY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Larson Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FRESH FOOD: Fails to Pay OT, "Noguez-Aguilar" Action Claims
GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Sale Offer Advertising

GATE GOURMET: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Dismissal
GENERAL INFORMATION: Removed "Dowell" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Melton" Suit to Georgia District Court
GENZYME CORP: 1st Cir. Refuses to Revive Investor Class Action
GRAND CONCOURSE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

INFOBLOX INC: Faces "Achey" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
INFOBLOX INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Awaits Final Approval of $36MM Settlement
INTUIT INC: Suits Over Refund Processing Service Fees Resolved
NVIDIA CORP: Appeal v. Nixing of Securities Suit Under Submission

LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Dickerson" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
LEMUEL L. LOLLIS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Borquez" Suit Claims
LENDIO INC: Sued Over TCPA Violations in Central California
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: In Talks to Settle Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
LINKEDIN CORP: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Follow-Up E-mails

LONG BEACH, CA: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
MARS INC: Suit Over Misleading Chocolate Labels to Continue
MICHAEL KITTELL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Tosses New Plaintiffs' Claims in MBS Suit

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Sued by Shareholders in Federal, State Courts
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Colleges Underreport Profits, Economist Says
NATROL INC: Files for Chapter 11 in Wake of Class Actions
OHANA MILITARY: Military Families File Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

PALM COAST BUILDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay for Overtime Work
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
QUINN EMANUEL: Ex-Attorney's Discovery Bid in OT Suit Denied
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action Appeal
REXNORD CORP: Pays Settlement of Suit Over Zurn Brass Fittings

RISTORANTE SIENA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Retirees May Commence Class Action by October
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Mass. Court
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit in Cal. Continues
SENECA MORTGAGE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

SOBTAX NY: Holder Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
SONY MUSIC: Sued Over Fraudulent Posthumous Michael Jackson Album
SPRINT CORP: Appeals Certification of "Bennett" Securities Suit
SPRINT CORP: Settlement of Clearwire Advertising Suits Ongoing
SPRINT CORP: Cert. Briefing Set in Privacy Suit v. Clearwire

SPRINT CORP: Conditional Certification of Labor Suit Challenged
ST LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Speeding Tickets
STERICYCLE INC: Still Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in Ill.
STERICYCLE INC: Faces Ill. Suit for Sending "Unsolicited" Fax Ad
TREADWAY FENTON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

TUESDAY MORNING: Oct. 9 Hearing of "Randell" Labor Suit Accord
UNION BANKSHARES: Awaits Final OK of StellarOne Suit Settlement
UNIT CORP: Certification Issues in Royalty Owners' Suit Pending
VICE MEDIA: Outten & Golden Mulls Intern Class Action
WATTS WATER: July 16 Fairness Hearing in "Trabakoolas" Suit Deal

YUMI ICE CREAM: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
ZALE CORP: Court Denies Preliminary Injunction v. Signet Merger

* Business Groups Back Crackdown on Opportunistic Securities Suits


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Wins 3rd Case on Quigley Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co Says It Needs No Official Claimant Panel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Confirms Ch. 11 Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Stock Ownership Change May Affect NOLs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $485-Mil. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 29,149 Unresolved PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Int'l. Had 1,072 Fibro Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 50,899 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Nelson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Dummitt" Suit is Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Garvin" Suit Against Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "DeLisle" Ruling Is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Had 73,800 Fibro Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 7,985 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmates to Proceed with Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maritime Law Applies in "Dumas" Suit, Court Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Mohler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Approval of Summary Judgment Bids Recommended
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Dropped as Defendant in WECCO Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Awarded Summary Judgment in Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Horrie" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Shipowners' Bids to Junk Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suits Consolidated For Trial Purposes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Allowed to Proceed in "Lepore" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Transfer Insurance Coverage Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in "Lang" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Bill Would Target "Double-Dipping" Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calls For Register of Fibro-Containing Properties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Children Exposed to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Illnesses Could Result in Separate Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Axing of Fibro Watchdog Shocks Head
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Fibro Complaints Rise by 350% After Quake
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Producer Managers Jailed for Fibro Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare to Close Tweed Museum Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Blamed for Death of Rawtenstall Poet

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fletchers Defends Handling of Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Passer-by Spots Fibro Gear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westerham Woman's Death Linked to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at Princetown Hospital Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Firm Angus Group Fined GBP109,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro "Time Bomb" Warning for Illawarra
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste Centre Given Go-Ahead for Holbury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Lead to Digging Ban at York Garden
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boise Construction Co. Fined for Fibro Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare for Carbonear Town Workers


                            *********


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Gets $3.2MM Award in Price-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Martin, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that Air New Zealand
has been awarded $3.2 million in legal costs after defending
allegations of price fixing in the Australian air cargo market.

Other airlines in the civil class action will pay A$38 million
(NZ$41.7 million) in a settlement reached with air cargo customers
in the Federal Court of Australia.

In 2007 Australian law firm Maurice Blackburn took the class
action against major international airlines including Qantas,
Lufthansa Cargo, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Air New
Zealand and British Airways, in relation to international air
freight services stretching back to January 2000.

The class action sought damages and other relief on behalf of air
freight customers, such as exporters, for losses suffered as a
result of the alleged cartel conduct by the airlines.

Air New Zealand denied any wrongdoing in this civil class action
case and in a separate Federal Court case, brought by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

A decision of the Federal Court is still pending, in respect of
those ACCC proceedings.

The proceedings are the latest in a string of globally
co-ordinated regulatory and class action cases against alleged
price-fixing of air cargo services by airlines also including
Emirates, Korean Air, Japan Airlines, Singapore Airlines Cargo,
Malaysian Airlines Cargo and Thai Airways.

In June 2013, following a Commerce Commission investigation here,
Air New Zealand was ordered by the High Court to pay a $7.5
million penalty for price-fixing as part of a settlement.

The airline was cleared of involvement by the European Commission
in 2010 and by the US Department of Justice in 2011, but a class
action against it in the United States remains.


ARIZONA: Class Certification in Inmates' Healthcare Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for East Valley Tribune, reports that a
federal appeals court gave the go-ahead on June 5 for a class-
action lawsuit alleging inadequate health care provided to more
than 34,000 inmates in state prisons that amounted to
unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, rejected efforts by the Department of Corrections to
limit the case to just the specific claims of 13 inmates who filed
suit two years ago.

The judge said the attorneys for the inmates provided detailed
allegations of everything from "outright denials of health care"
to improper isolation policies.  They also had information on how
spending on certain services dropped by more than a third over a
two-year period even as inmate population did not.

But perhaps the most significant point in the June 5 ruling is
that the court concluded the claims, if proven true, were not
unique to the individual inmates but instead "systemic failures"
in the prison's health care system "that expose all inmates to a
substantial risk of serious harm."  And if that is the case,
Judge Reinhardt said that would require a wholesale revamp of the
agency's policies -- and not simply correcting the problems of the
13 inmates.

Attorney Dan Barr, part of the legal team representing the
inmates, said a class-action lawsuit is appropriate.

"It's a case not about any one particular prisoner or group of
prisoners but the entire prison health care system which puts all
inmates in the state of Arizona in danger of receiving
unconstitutionally low levels of health care," he said.

A trial is set for Oct. 20 in federal court in Phoenix.  Mr. Barr
said the ruling, unless overturned, means if Judge Neil Wake finds
constitutional violations he can order the Department of
Corrections to change its policies for not just current but also
future inmates.

Agency spokesman Doug Nick said his agency disputes the inmates'
allegations that their rights are being violated and "looks
forward to vigorously challenging them and presenting our case at
trial."

The lawsuit focuses on the more than 34,000 inmates housed in
state-run facilities, inmates whose health care is supposed to be
provided by private firms under contract with the state.  Another
nearly 6,900 are in private prisons and not affected by the
ruling.

Among the allegations are "lengthy and dangerous delays" and
"outright denials of health care," failure to provide necessary
medication, a practice of "employing insufficient health care
staff," substandard dental care and denial of basic mental health
care to suicidal and self-harming prisoners.

The lawsuit also said that inmates in isolation units were denied
adequate recreation and nutrition, constant cell illumination and
inadequate mental health care staffing and treatment.

To prove their case, the inmates presented evidence of the
agency's policies, internal communications and reports from four
experts in prison medical care and conditions of confinement, and
they provided specific incidents.

One involves an inmate who collapsed in his cell from a heart
attack but where the lawsuit says officers told prisoners who
asked for help to "wait and see what happens."  While the inmate
was taken, eventually, to the medical unit, he was told he had a
medical appointment in a few days.

But the inmate, according to the lawsuit, had another heart attack
the next day and died.

The legal papers also cite a prison, four months pregnant who
experienced painful contractions and spotting blood.  But a
staffer at the medical unit told her it was nothing serious and
"all in her head," refusing to allow her to see someone for
evaluation.

She eventually miscarried.

Judge Reinhardt said the response to the lawsuit was a summary of
agency policies, several of which had been modified mere days
before the defendants filed their brief in district court.  Judge
Reinhardt also noted there was no rebuttal of the expert witness
reports.

"Further the defendants did not address the individual policies
and practices complained of by the plaintiffs nor present evidence
meant to deny their existence," he wrote.

More to the point, Judge Reinhardt said the lawsuit is not based
on any one specific claim that a particular inmate received
inadequate care but rather that the agency's policies and how they
are administered "expose all inmates in ADC custody to a
substantial risk of serious harm."  And the judge said that is
precisely the kind of claim anticipated by the Eighth Amendment
protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Reinhardt said it would be improper to deny legal relief to
inmates if they can prove unsafe and life-threatening conditions
"on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them."  Judge
Reinhardt said the fact that not every inmate it is irrelevant has
been injured is irrelevant.

"After all, every inmate in ADC custody is necessarily subject to
the same medical, mental health and dental care policies and
practices," he said.  "And any one of them could easily fall ill,
be injured, need to fill a prescription, require emergency care or
specialist care, crack a tooth or require mental health
treatment."

In fact, Judge Reinhardt said "it would indeed be surprising if
any given inmate did not experience such a health care need while
serving his sentence."


AVERUS INC: Faces "Avendano" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Avendano, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Averus, Inc., Michael Shank, Case No. 1:14-cv-01614
(D. Colo., June 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay the putative class members for all of the hours
they worked or overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
week.

Averus, Inc., is a Wisconsin corporation which provides cleaning
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Neville Hood, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE-GOLDEN
      601 16th Street, Suite C-207,
      Golden, CO 80401
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org


AVX CORP: Accrues $1MM for Case Related to South Carolina Factory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corp. has accrued $1.0 million with respect to an
environmental case related to a property adjacent to its Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina factory as of March 31, 2014, according to
the company's May 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2014.

"On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State
Court by individuals as a class action pending with respect to
property adjacent to our Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory
claiming property values have been negatively impacted by alleged
migration of certain pollutants from our property.  The company
intends to defend vigorously the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a
determination as to the nature of the liability or the amount, if
any, of damages.  Based on our estimate of potential outcomes, the
company accrued $1.0 million with respect to this case as of March
31, 2014," the Company said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Rabbat" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rabbat v. Bank of America,
National Association, et al., Case No. SC122408, was removed from
the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04497 to the proceeding.  The
lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael David Mandel, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com


BB ONE: Faces "Cortez" Action for Failing to Pay Workers Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Cortez, Feliciano Cerezo, Guadalupe Gomez and Luis Enrique,
on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class
v. BB One LLC d/b/a Bare Burger, Bare City Two LLC d/b/a Bare
Burger, Bare City Three LLC d/b/a Bare Burger, Nickolaos
Marolachakis, Nikolaos Galanis, Vlasy Voinovich, Dimirtrios
Kosmidis and Matthew Kouskalis, Case No. 1:14-cv-04129 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 9, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

BB One LLC d/b/a Bare Burger, operates three "Bare Burger"
restaurants as a single integrated enterprise, with its principal
place of business located at 514 Third Avenue, New York, New York
10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Renna Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Renna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-00833
(D. Conn., June 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the
alleged false, deceptive, and misleading marketing and advertising
pet food products and claims that it contains no poultry by-
product meal or grains.

The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered at 444 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut 06897.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
      KLINGMAN LAW, LLC
      196 Trumbull Street Suite 510,
      Hartford, CT 06103-2207
      Telephone: (860) 256-6120
      E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com


BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hutchison and Jason Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Case
No. 4:14-cv-01070 (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for the alleged false, deceptive, and misleading
marketing and advertising pet food products and claims that it
contains no poultry by-product meal or grains.

The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered at 444 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut 06897.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
      STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD
      901 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1257,
      Rolla, MO 65402
      Telephone: (573) 341-8336
      Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
      E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com


BROOKFIELD ASSET: Lanny McDonald Named Representative Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Stakeholders LLC on June 5 disclosed that an Amended
Statement of Claim in the class action against Brookfield Asset
Management Inc., Brookfield Special Situations Ltd. and
Hammerstone Corporation was filed on the 27 May, 2014, file number
1401-05797, in Calgary in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.

The Amended Statement of Claim appoints Mr. Lanny K. McDonald as
the representative plaintiff.  Lanny McDonald is a respected NHL
player, has won as many awards for his humanitarian efforts as he
did for sportsmanship.  Mr. McDonald was inducted into the Hockey
Hall of Fame in 1992.  Mr. McDonald sat on the board of Birch
Mountain Resources Ltd, was also a shareholder and creditor of the
company.

The amended Statement of Claim alleges that the defendants acted
in a manner that was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to, and
unfairly disregarded the interests of the Birch Mountain Resources
Ltd. common shareholders.

The assets of a junior public company, Birch Mountain, worth an
appraised $1.6 billion dollars by AMEC, dated August 01, 2006
prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 were
transferred to a private company, 1439442, for a cash outlay of
less than $50 million dollars, as stated in the Amended Statement
of Claim.

The action is based on the oppression remedy as well as the good
faith doctrine and the tort of negligent misrepresentation.

The Amended Statement of Claim alleges that:

   -- Brookfield and Tricap, usurped shareholders rights and
debenture holder rights.

   -- Brookfield and Tricap contrived a default to put Birch
Mountain into receivership.

   -- Brookfield director, James Pattison owner of Great Pacific
Capital Corp, received a preferential deal as compensation for his
unsecured subordinate convertible debenture shares usurping other
subordinate convertible debenture shareholders.

   -- Brookfield and Tricap via the PwC receiver's report omitted
informing the Receivership Court of the value of the asset and
therefore were able to acquire the $1.6 billion dollar asset for
undervalue.

   -- Brookfield and Tricap via the PwC receiver's report omitted
informing the receivership court of the Q3 and cash flow break
even position of Birch Mountain.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not yet been proven in court.

Plaintiff's counsel believes they will demonstrate the oppressive
business tactics of Brookfield and their subsidiaries which
resulted in Birch Mountain shareholders from across North America
losing all of their investment.

"Families, careers, and retirements were damaged and in some cases
destroyed," states Champion Stakeholders, the group of three
shareholders who initiated the lawsuit.

For information about the class action lawsuit, including the
Amended Statement of Claim, please review the official legal
website at: http://www.brookfieldclassaction.com

Additional information can be found at
http://jimymac.blogs.com/shareholdersforjustice/
Contact: birchmountain@husmail.com


CARBONITE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Data Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that cloud computing
services company Carbonite Inc. was hit on June 4 with a putative
class action suit in California federal court alleging Carbonite
failed to disclose when its backup data became corrupted, leading
to a boutique law firm's loss of key information.

Shainfeld & Anvar PC claims it subscribed to Carbonite's backup
service for two years under the promise that the law firm's files
would be safe, available anytime and free from computer glitches
because of redundant hardware.

But Carbonite's backup data for the firm became degraded in April,
more than two weeks before Shainfeld & Anvar experienced its own
computer problems.  Because Carbonite never told the firm about
the data loss, the data can only be recovered by a third-party
retrieval company, the suit claims.

"Defendants committed 'fraudulent' business acts and practices by
deceiving consumers into believing that their services and
software would backup [sic] the consumer's computer data and by
concealing the fact from consumers that the software was not
backing up the data on their computers," the complaint said.

The suit alleges Carbonite violated California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law,
and brings causes of action for unjust enrichment, fraudulent
concealment and breach of contract.

Shainfeld & Anvar says it has spent about $800 since 2012 backing
up its files with Carbonite, which claims customers can restore
their files "anytime, anywhere," the complaint said.  Carbonite
advertises that files are protected because information is backed
up automatically and continually in remote data centers with
temperature controls and backup power generators, according to the
suit.

Consumers would have no reason to believe, based on Carbonite's
promotional material, that the company would suffer from hardware
glitches that degrade and corrupt their data, the suit said.

In late April, Shainfeld & Anvar lost local access to its data and
attempted to restore it using Carbonite's software, according to
the complaint.  But the data was unavailable and technical support
said the backup had been corrupted two weeks before the firm's
external storage malfunctioned, the suit said.

A Carbonite executive allegedly called the firm and confirmed
there had been degradation and that nothing could be done by
Carbonite to retrieve the data.  The executive did not say why
Shainfeld & Anvar was not notified when the problem occurred, but
said it was the first time he had seen Carbonite lose customer
data, the complaint alleges.

"In reasonable reliance on defendant's misrepresentations and
omissions, plaintiff purchased defendants' backup computer
services for more money than it should have been required to spend
and plaintiff was not reimbursed for defendant's non-functional
services," the complaint said.  "Plaintiff has therefore suffered
injury proximately caused by defendants' unfair and deceptive
practice."

The suit seeks to certify a class of Carbonite customers who lost
data and were not notified by Carbonite, as well as a class of
customers who were charged, but not reimbursed, an annual fee
during the time the backup services were allegedly nonfunctional.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- and Nicholas J. Bontrager
-- nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com -- of Law Offices of Todd
M. Friedman PC.

The case is Shainfeld & Anvar PC v. Carbonite Inc., case number
2:14-cv-04318, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


CATERPILLAR INC: "Tri-City" Suit Included in Engine Products MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tri-City Charter of Bossier Inc.
v. Caterpillar Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-03292, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03730 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Caterpillar Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products Liability
Litigation, MDL # 2540.

Tri-City Charter of Bossier, Inc., brought the class action on
behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated
entities, who purchased or leased a vehicle with a 2007, 2008, or
2009 Caterpillar, Inc. C-13 or C-15 heavy duty on-highway diesel
engine.  In order to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2007 Emission Standard applicable to heavy duty, on-highway diesel
engines, Caterpillar designed, manufactured, sold for profit, and
warranted MY2007 CAT Engines with an exhaust emission control
system containing integrated components intended to reduce air
pollutants, in particular, oxides of nitrogen and particulate
matter, to levels not to exceed those set by the 2007 Standard.
The exhaust emission control system employed by CAT is known as
the "Caterpillar Regeneration System" or "CRS."

The Plaintiff alleges that CAT's CRS is defective in material and
workmanship causing the vehicle to not function as required under
all operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even
after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          Donna M. Bossier, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
          15058 River Road
          P.O. Box 904
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985)783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
                  dbossier@me.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Ave., Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: Rich@complexlitgroup.com
                  Jamie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020
          Facsimile: (618) 235-8558
          E-mail: KTH@bphlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7980
          E-mail: JShub@SeegerWeiss.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          LEOPOLD LAW, P.A.
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          E-mail: tleopold@leopold-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Camille Rachelle Bryant, Esq.
          Colvin G. Norwood, Jr., Esq.
          Deirdre C. McGlinchey, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Crowson, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD (NO)
          P O Box 60643
          New Orleans, LA 70160-0643
          Telephone: (504) 596-2763
          Facsimile: (504) 596-2800
          E-mail: cbryant@mcglinchey.com
                  wnorwood@mcglinchey.com
                  dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com
                  gcrowson@mcglinchey.com


CHINA CERAMICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against China Ceramics Co., Ltd. on behalf of
purchasers of its common stock between March 30, 2012 and May 1,
2014 charging violations of the federal securities laws. The class
action seeks to recover losses of China Ceramics shareholders.

To join the China Ceramics class action, visit the firm's website
at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan toll-
free at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.  The
lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

According to the suit, China Ceramics failed to disclose and/or
materially misstated its true financial condition.  On May 1,
2014, NASDAQ announced that trading in China Ceramics was halted
that day for "additional information requested" from the Company.
On that same day, China Ceramics announced, among other things,
that: (i) on April 30, 2014, the Company terminated the engagement
of Grant Thornton as its principal independent registered public
accountants; (ii) following the decision to terminate Grant
Thorton, William L. Stulginsky tendered his resignation as an
independent director and Chairman of the Audit Committee; (iii)
the audit of the Company's consolidated financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2013 has not been completed; (iv) the
Company is unable to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2013; and (v) during the
preparation of its 2013 financial statements the Company
identified a write down of assets for the fourth quarter resulting
from unused capacity at its Hengdali facility, which is currently
estimated to be $7.5 million. According to the complaint, trading
in China Ceramics stock remains halted rendering its shares
illiquid and virtually worthless.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 5, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or kchan@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


COMSCORE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action for $14 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that ComScore Inc. has
struck a $14 million settlement with what is believed to be the
largest class ever certified under federal electronic privacy
laws, composed of Web users who allegedly had the online analytics
giant's data-harvesting software installed on their computers
without consent, according to court documents filed on May 30.

If approved, the pact would compensate a certified class of
thousands of individuals in a suit claiming comScore secretly
surveilled them through its proprietary tracking software OSSProxy
and sold their private information.  ComScore allegedly snuck the
program onto users' computers by bundling it together with
seemingly benign applications like screensavers, music programs or
games made by the company's partners.

The software constantly collects information about online
activity -- search engine queries, frequently visited websites,
product purchases, ad clicks and the like -- and feeds it back to
comScore, which uses it to compile Internet usage reports for a
panoply of online service providers.

First filed in 2011, the case turned heads in the privacy class
action bar in April 2013 when U.S. District Judge James F.
Holderman certified the massive class -- a rare victory for
plaintiffs in data collection suits that often face ruinously high
barriers to certification.  The Seventh Circuit refused to
question the ruling, setting up the May 30 agreement.

The plaintiffs' attorney Jay Edelson of Edelson PC told Law360
that the deal "stacks up favorably" with other high-profile
privacy cases that have been largely been resolved through
miniscule payouts to class members or cy pres awards to nonprofit
groups.

In contrast, users who file claims will receive an estimated $200
payment from comScore, according to Mr. Edelson, who cited privacy
litigation surrounding Google Inc.'s Google Buzz and Google
Analytics, Netflix Inc.'s data collection practices, and
Facebook's Beacon and Sponsored Stories features as examples of
cases that settled without providing meaningful compensation for
alleged victims.

"In this case, class members will be receiving actual cash," he
said. "We're quite pleased."

The $14 million will cover $4.6 million in attorneys' fees for the
plaintiffs and the remaining funds would be distributed to
participating class members on a pro rata basis, with no money
reverting to comScore.  The company would also be required to
alter its privacy policies and end user license agreements to
bring its disclosures in line with its data collection practices,
according to the deal.

As originally certified, the class included comScore users
worldwide, but the parties later agreed to restrict the class
definition to U.S. users due to concerns over the federal court's
extraterritorial jurisdiction, Mr. Edelson said.

A comScore representative declined to comment on the settlement.
A statement blasting the suit as a money grab and "filled with
factual inaccuracies" was still visible on its website as of
June 4.

In the complaint, named plaintiffs Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan
said the company had violated the Stored Communications Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act by covertly placing OSSProxy on their computers without
obtaining the proper consent via end user license agreements.

The plaintiffs said they were not sufficiently informed about the
tracking program had been bundled together with the seemingly
innocuous "freeware" that they downloaded and installed.

The tracking program makes its way into target computers without
initiating any new installation process and generally without
presenting any new dialog windows to the user, according to the
complaint.

OSSProxy supposedly scrubs personally identifying data like Social
Security numbers and bank information, but the suit also claimed
that comScore had breached federal law by designing the program to
merely "fuzzify" or "obscure" the information rather than making
"commercially viable efforts to automatically filter" that data
before remitting it back to the company.

Mr. Dunstan allegedly spent hours trying to remove the software
and eventually paid $40 for anti-virus software, while Harris said
the program had remained even after he uninstalled the screensaver
that introduced it to his computer.

The settlement class entails anyone who had comScore's software
installed since 2005 via a third-party bundling partner.  There is
also a subclass of users who were not presented with a functional
hyperlink to the license agreement.

The class is represented by Rafey S. Balabanian, Jay Edelson,
Chandler R. Givens and Benjamin S. Thomassen of Edelson PC.

ComScore is represented by Andrew H. Schapiro --
andyschapiro@quinnemanuel.com -- Stephen Swedlow --
stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- and Robyn Bowland of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Paul F. Stack --
pstack@stacklaw.com -- of Stack & O'Connor Chtd.

The case is Harris et al. v. comScore Inc., case number 1:11-cv-
05807, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Approval of Accord in Athletes' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. and counsel for plaintiffs in actions brought
by college athletes are in the process of preparing a written
settlement agreement and other documents to present to the
respective courts for approval of the settlement, according to the
company's May 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is defending a putative class action lawsuit brought
by Ryan Hart, a former college football player, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey in June 2009,
which alleges that the company misappropriated his likeness in the
Company's college-themed football game. The complaint seeks actual
damages and other unspecified damages, which have not been
quantified. In September 2011, the district court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 21, 2013, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court's
decision and remanded the case back to the district court.

The Company also disclosed that the "In re NCAA Student-Athlete
Name & Likeness Licensing" litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California involves
two groups of common claims brought by several different former
collegiate student-athletes in 2009. These various actions were
consolidated into one action in February 2010. The first group of
claims is a class action against the company, the NCAA and the
Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) alleging that our college-
themed video games misappropriated the likenesses of collegiate
student-athletes without their authorization. This group of claims
seeks actual damages, statutory damages and other unspecified
damages, which have not been quantified.

According to the Company, "On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of our motion
to strike the complaint. The second group of claims is a federal
antitrust class action against the company, the NCAA and the CLC
that challenges NCAA/CLC licensing practices and the NCAA By-Laws
and regulations. This group of claims seeks unspecified damages,
which have not been quantified."

In September 2013, the company reached an agreement to settle all
actions brought by college athletes. The company and counsel for
plaintiffs are in the process of preparing a written settlement
agreement and other documents to present to the respective courts
for approval of the settlement. The company recognized a $30
million accrual during the second quarter of fiscal 2014
associated with the anticipated settlement.

On November 4, 2013, the NCAA filed a complaint against the
Company and CLC in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges that the
Company is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
NCAA against claims asserted in In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name &
Likeness Licensing concerning the alleged misappropriation of
student-athletes' publicity rights in EA's collegiate video games.
The company has not yet responded to the NCAA's complaint.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. continues to face a consolidated securities
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to the company's May 21, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of
purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder
class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was
subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been
consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of
its officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game. The
lawsuits seek unspecified damages, which have not been quantified.
The company has not yet responded to the complaints.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Falconstor Software, Inc. is awaiting final approval of a
settlement reached in a shareholder lawsuit filed in the United
Stated District Court for the Eastern 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.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought in
United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
by Company shareholders (the "Class Action").  The other
defendants are James Weber, the Company's former CFO and Vice
President for Operations, and the estate of ReiJane Huai.  Mr.
Huai was the Company's former Chairman, President and CEO.

The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants defrauded
shareholders by falsely certifying in the Company's SEC filings
that they had disclosed any fraud, whether or not material, that
involved management or other employees who had a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants were in
fact aware of fraud.

On May 8, 2014 a settlement of the action was approved by the
court. In the fourth quarter of 2013, following preliminary
approval of the settlement by the district court, the Company
deposited $5.0 million into an escrow account, where it was being
held pending final settlement.

Company stockholders filed actions in the Suffolk County Division
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, putatively
derivatively on behalf of the Company, against the Company, each
of the Company's Directors, Mr. Weber, Wayne Lam, a former Vice
president of the Company, the estate of Mr. Huai, and Jason Lin, a
former employee of the Company (the "Derivative Action"). The
consolidated amended Derivative Action complaint alleged that the
defendants breached their duties to the Company by: (1) causing or
allowing the dissemination of false and misleading information;
(2) failing to maintain internal controls; (3) failing to manage
the Company properly; (4) unjustly enriching themselves; (5)
abusing their control of the Company; and (6) wasting Company
assets.

On March 5, 2013, the Suffolk County Division of the Supreme Court
of the State of New York granted a motion made by all of the
defendants in the Derivative Action, except Mr. Lin, and dismissed
the Derivative Action as to all defendants other than Mr. Lin. The
stockholders have appealed the dismissal of the Derivative Action.
The Company cannot predict when the appeal will be resolved or the
ultimate outcome of the matter. Certain of the defendants may be
entitled to indemnification by the Company under the laws of
Delaware and/or the Company's by-laws.

The Company has insurance policies that were purchased to cover,
among other things, lawsuits like the Class Action and the
Derivative Action. The Company's Directors and Officers ("D&O")
Insurance, is composed of more than one layer, each layer written
by a different insurance company. However, the events that gave
rise to the claims in the Class Action and the Derivative Action
caused the Company's insurers to reserve their rights to disclaim,
rescind, or otherwise not be obligated to provide coverage to the
Company and certain other insureds under the policies. In light of
these uncertainties, the Company has entered into settlements with
two of its insurers. Pursuant to these settlements, the Company
will not receive repayment of all amounts it might otherwise have
received.

In October 2012 the Company entered into an agreement with the
carrier of the first $5.0 million layer of the Company's D&O
insurance. Pursuant to this agreement, the Company accepted a
payment of $3.9 million from the first layer insurance carrier in
satisfaction of the carrier's obligations to the Company under the
first layer D&O insurance policy. In addition, as part of the
October 2012 agreement with the carrier, the Company agreed to
indemnify the carrier of the first layer of D&O insurance against
potential claims by certain named insured persons under the first
layer D&O insurance policy. The Company cannot predict the
likelihood or the outcome of any such claims by the named
insureds.

Because the carrier of the next layer of insurance would not be
obligated to make payment to the Company until the full $5.0
million first layer limit had been exhausted, this means that the
Company was responsible for $1.1 million out of pocket before it
could again seek reimbursement from its insurers. The Company
accrued for the $1.1 million during 2012.

On July 31, 2013 the Company entered into an agreement with the
carrier of the second $5.0 million layer of the Company's D&O
insurance. Pursuant to the agreement, the insurer agreed to pay
seventy five percent (75%) of the Company's losses attributable to
the Class Action and the Derivative Action the first $5.25 million
of such losses. In addition, as part of the July 31, 2013
agreement with the carrier, the Company agreed to indemnify the
carrier of the second layer of D&O insurance against potential
claims by certain named insured persons under the second layer D&O
insurance. The Company cannot predict the likelihood or the
outcome of any such claims by the named insureds.

While, at present, the Company does not believe that the amounts
it will pay in connection with the Class Action and the Derivative
Action will exceed the limits of the first two layers of its
coverage, there can be no assurance that if the Company seeks
recovery from the additional layers, the recovery the Company
makes on the remainder of its insurance will be adequate to cover
the costs of its defense or settlement of the Derivative Action,
or any damages that might ultimately be awarded against the
Company or anyone to whom the Company might owe indemnification if
the appeal is successful.

The Company's remaining insurers may deny coverage under the
policies. If the plaintiffs are awarded damages and the Company's
insurance is not adequate to cover the amounts, or its insurers
deny coverage, the amounts to be paid by the Company could have a
significant negative impact on its financial results, cash flow
and cash balances.

Since October 1, 2012, the Company has recorded $7.4 million of
total costs associated with the Class Action and the Derivative
Actions. The Company has recorded a liability in the amount of
$0.3 million in "accrued expenses" in the consolidated balance
sheets as of March 31, 2014 which includes estimated legal fees
for both the Class Action and the Derivative Action to date. As a
result of the agreement reached with the insurer carriers of the
Company's D&O insurance, the Company recorded insurance recoveries
of $5.5 million since October 1, 2012 of which $5.3 million have
been reimbursed by the Company's insurance carriers and the
remaining $0.2 million is recorded as a receivable in "prepaid
expenses and other current assets" in the consolidated balance
sheet as of March 31, 2014.

During both the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, the
Company recorded $0.1 million of investigation, litigation and
settlement related legal costs, net of expected recoveries,
related to expenses related to the class action and derivative
lawsuits and other settlement related activities that are not
recoverable through insurance.


FERRARA CANDY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saturnino Z. Vazquez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Ferrara Candy Company and Thomas
P. Polke, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04233 (N.D. Ill., June 9,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ferrara Candy Company is an "enterprise" engaged in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. 1
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200,
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


FGX INTERNATIONAL: Larson Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Larson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FGX International, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02277 (D.
Kan., June 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages including,
minimum wages, straight time, and overtime compensation and
related penalties and damages.

FGX International, Inc., is "the world's leading designer and
marketer of non-prescription reading glasses and sunglasses." It
is located at 500 George Washington Highway, Smithfield, RI 02917.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Edward Osman, Esq.
      Mikah K. Thompson, Esq.
      Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley, Esq.
      OSMAN & SMAY, LLP
      8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330,
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Telephone: (913) 667-9243
      Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
      E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
              mthompson@workerwagerights.com
              krickley@workerwagerights.com


FRESH FOOD: Fails to Pay OT, "Noguez-Aguilar" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Javier Noguez-Aguilar, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Fresh Food Management, LLC dba
Freshii and David Grossman, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04275
(N.D. Ill., June 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Fresh Food Management, LLC, is an "enterprise" engaged in commerce
or in the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200,
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Telephone: (877) 509-6422
     Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
     E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Sale Offer Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Grymes Thompson, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that
class action plaintiffs continue to explore new theories under
state promotional pricing statutes.  Recently, a plaintiff filed a
class action complaint against Gap Inc. in California state court,
alleging that the company violates several state laws by not
adequately disclosing which products are excluded from an
advertised sale.  As a result, consumers make a psychological
commitment to purchase the items before they realize the items are
not actually on sale and end up purchasing those items.
Particularly in light of the decision in the Overstock case, this
will be a case to watch closely.

The plaintiff claims that Gap's in-store and email advertising
fails to adequately disclose limitations on sale offers.
Specifically, the plaintiff states that Gap advertises that
certain categories of clothing are on sale, but does not disclose
(or does not adequately disclose) that the sale does not apply to
all clothing in that category, or does not identify (or does not
adequately identify) the clothing that is excluded from the sale.

As an example, the plaintiff points to an in-store, on-rack ad
displaying, "DRESSES $25," with the statement "SELECT STYLES.
DISCOUNT TAKEN AT REGISTER." in the corner of the ad.
Additionally, the plaintiff states that she received an email with
"Hours to Shop!; Happy Monday; 40% Off Your Purchase; Ends
Tonight" appearing in dark letters against a white background and
in "barely noticeable lettering against a colored background" the
disclaimer "EXCLUSIONS APPLY."  The plaintiff claims that
consumers cannot discover whether an item is included in or
excluded from a sale until the item is scanned at the register or
placed in the online shopping cart for purchase.

According to the plaintiff this failure results in consumers
"psychologically committing" to purchase the items before they
realize that those items are not subject to the advertised sale.
The plaintiff seeks an injunction and restoration of all monies
that Gap received as a result of its practices -- i.e., the amount
that consumers "overpaid" for items that were not on sale.  The
plaintiff estimates the total consumer injury exceeds $10 million.


GATE GOURMET: Supreme Court Reverses Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Gate Gourmet
could be obligated to make certain accommodations for employees'
religious beliefs, according to a decision issued by the
Washington Supreme Court.

The state Supreme Court of Appeals on May 22 reversed a trial
court's dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Gate Gourmet
alleging it did not reasonably accommodate its employees'
religious practices by serving them meals that contained animal
byproducts at lunch.

James Kumar, Ranveer Singh, Asegedew Gefe, Abbas Kosymov were all
employees of Gate Gourmet and claimed the company violated
Washington's Law Against Discrimination.

Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Charlie K. Wiggins, Debra L.
Stephens, Steven C. Gonzalez and Mary Fairhurst voted in the
majority, with Gordon McCloud authoring the opinion.

Justices Barbara Madsen, Charles W. Johnson and Susan Owens voted
in the minority, with Justice Madsen filing a dissenting opinion.

"The trial court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, finding
that the WLAD contains no requirement that employers make
reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious
practices," the majority opinion states.  "We granted direct
review and now reverse."

The WLAD includes a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee's
religious practices, the majority opinion states.

The trial court erred when it dismissed the employees' reasonable
accommodation claim on the ground that the WLAD created no cause
of action for failure to accommodate religious practices,
according to the majority opinion.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2012 and was dismissed in 2013 by
former King County Superior Court Judge Mary Yu.  Judge Yu is now
on the Washington Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs work near SeaTac airport for Gate Gourmet,
preparing meals for service on trains and airplanes.

Due to security concerns, the employees can neither bring food
with them to work nor leave the premises to obtain food during
their 30-minute lunch break.  Instead, Gate Gourmet provides meals
for employees to consume during their break.  These meals consist
of one vegetarian and one meat-based main dish.  However, the
plaintiffs claim that Gate Gourmet uses animal byproducts in the
vegetarian option.

The plaintiffs claim when they informed Gate Gourmet that their
various religious beliefs prohibited them from eating the beef-
pork meatballs the company served, Gate Gourmet responded by
temporarily switching to turkey meatballs.  However, the company
later allegedly switched back to the beef-pork mixture without
notifying the employees, and it now refuses to alter the employee
meals.

The employees brought a class action lawsuit alleging that Gate
Gourmet's knowing refusal to label and "adapt its menu to
accommodate the tenets of [their] beliefs and religions" violated
the WLAD, according to the opinion.  The plaintiffs claim the
policy forces them to work without food or eat food that violates
their religious beliefs.  They also claimed it was battery and
negligent inflection of emotional distress.

In 2013, the trial court granted Gate Gourmet's CR 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss the complaint in full. It found that the WLAD contains
no requirement that employers make reasonable accommodations for
their employees' religious practices.

The plaintiffs then sought and obtained direct review by the state
Supreme Court.

"The trial court also erred in dismissing the employees' claims
for disparate impact, battery and negligent infliction of
emotional distress," the majority opinion states. "We reverse the
decision of the Superior Court and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion."

"I believe that the majority erred by implying a cause of action
for religious accommodation into the Washington Law Against
Discrimination . . . in the absence of any legislative or
administrative directive," Justice Madsen's dissenting opinion
states.

Notwithstanding this error, the majority then misapplies this
newly created accommodation cause of action to this case,
according to the dissenting opinion.

"It is important to remember that a cause of action for
discrimination in private employment is based in statute," the
dissenting opinion states.  "The Legislature included religion as
one of many grounds on which to establish a discrimination claim
. . . and directed the Human Rights Commission to promulgate rules
to implement the purposes of the WLAD."

At the same time, the Legislature chose to entirely exempt
nonprofit religious institutions from prosecution under the WLAD,
and the existence of this exemption is strong evidence that the
Legislature has given due consideration to the complexities and
implications of legislating in the religious discrimination arena
and has chosen not to do so, at least for the time being,
according to the dissenting opinion.

Justice Madsen states that she disagrees with the majority's
decision to create "out of whole cloth a new cause of action for
failure to accommodate without any suggestion that the Legislature
or the HRC intended to provide such a claim."

"Moreover, Title VII requires some form of actual or threatened
adverse employment action to meet the third prong of a prima facie
accommodation claim," she states.  "The majority is wrong to
suggest otherwise."

Under any reasonable definition of a prima facie case, Mr. Kumar
failed to allege the requisite employment harm.

"Thus, even if this court implies an accommodation cause of action
into the WLAD, Kumar cannot state a prima facie case."

Washington Supreme Court case number: 88062-0


GENERAL INFORMATION: Removed "Dowell" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dowell, et al. v. General
Information Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-02581, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03412-PBT to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          Devin H. Fok, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK
          PO Box 7165
          Alhambra, CA 98102-7165
          Telephone: (310) 430-9933
          Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
          E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cindy D. Hanson, Esq.
          John P. Jett, Esq.
          Richard D. Dietz, Esq.
          Ross D. Andre, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: chanson@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  rdietz@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  randre@ktslaw.com

               - and -

          Gary J. Lorch, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
          E-mail: GLorch@gordonrees.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Melton" Suit to Georgia District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors LLC ("New GM") removed the action captioned Melton,
et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 14A1197-4, from the
State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01815-MHS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs first brought a lawsuit against New GM and Thornton
Chevrolet, Inc. in June 2011, claiming damages arising from a 2010
fatal car accident involving Brooke Melton.  According to the
notice of removal, the Plaintiffs settled that lawsuit with
respect to New GM on September 9, 2013.  The Plaintiffs proceeded
with their claims against the Thornton dealership and trial was
set for June 9, 2014.  On May 9, 2014, however, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims against Thornton in the
original lawsuit.

On May 12, 2014, only three days after voluntarily dismissing the
Thornton dealership, the Plaintiffs brought this action against
New GM and against Thornton.  The Plaintiffs bring two sets of
claims against New GM:

   (1) the Plaintiffs purport to seek rescission of their
       September 9, 2013 Settlement Agreement with New GM based
       on allegations that New GM concealed evidence from the
       Plaintiffs during the first lawsuit and that a New GM
       employee allegedly provided false testimony during his
       deposition in that case; and

   (2) the Plaintiffs claim that New GM "designed, selected,
       inspected, tested, manufactured, assembled, equipped,
       marketed, distributed, and sold" to them a Chevrolet
       Cobalt that was "not crashworthy, is defective, and is
       unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for foreseeable users."

The Plaintiffs contend there was a "low torque detent in the
ignition switch, which allows the key to be inadvertently turned
from the run to accessory/off position."  The Plaintiffs further
allege that New GM concealed the alleged defect from its dealers,
customers, and others with the intention of "induc[ing] NHTSA not
to [issue a nationwide] recall."  The Plaintiffs also purport to
assert a negligence claim against the Thornton dealership.

The new action is one of at least 91 actions (the "Ignition Switch
Actions") filed in federal court since February 2014 that include
factual allegations involving allegedly defective ignition
switches.  On March 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation established MDL 2543, In re General Motors LLC Ignition
Switch Litigation.  Subsequently, on June 9, 2014, the JPML
designated the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York as the MDL court and assigned to the
Honorable Jesse M. Furman to conduct coordinated or consolidated
proceedings in the Ignition Switch Actions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lance Alan Cooper, Esq.
          Patrick Alan Dawson, Esq.
          THE COOPER FIRM
          531 Roseland Street, Suite 200
          Marietta, GA 30060-6970
          Telephone: (770) 427-5588
          Facsimile: (770) 427-0100
          E-mail: lance@thecooperfirm.net
                  patrickadawson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Benjamin E. Baker, Jr., Esq.
          Jere L. Beasley, Esq.
          J. Greg Allen, Esq.
          J. Cole Portis, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2034
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: ben.baker@beasleyallen.com
                  jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com
                  greg.allen@beasleyallen.com
                  cole.portis@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Kenneth R. Bernard, Jr., Esq.
          SHERROD & BERNARD, P.C.
          8470 Price Avenue
          P.O. Box 1154 (30133)
          Douglasville, GA 30134
          Telephone: (770) 920-8350

Defendant General Motors LLC is represented by:

          Jeffrey Alan Daxe, Esq.
          Robert Donald Ingram, Esq.
          MOORE INGRAM JOHNSON & STEELE, LLP
          326 Roswell Street
          Marietta, GA 30060-3305
          Telephone: (770) 429-1499
          E-mail: jad@mijs.com
                  ringram@mijs.com

Defendant Thornton Chevrolet, Inc., is represented by:

          Marc Howard Bardack, Esq.
          Matthew Peter Stone, Esq.
          Shawn N. Kalfus, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30339-5948
          Telephone: (770) 818-0000
          Facsimile: (770) 668-0878
          E-mail: mbardack@fmglaw.com
                  mstone@fmglaw.com
                  skalfus@fmglaw.com


GENZYME CORP: 1st Cir. Refuses to Revive Investor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Daniel Wilson, Erica Teichert and Jonathan Randles,
writing for Law360, report that the First Circuit refused on
June 5 to revive a consolidated class action accusing Genzyme
Corp. of misleading the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over
manufacturing plant problems and selling its securities at
artificially inflated prices, ruling the allegations didn't
sufficiently show deceitful intent.

Affirming a lower court decision, the appeals judges said the
investors behind the suit failed to plead scienter because Genzyme
hadn't concealed a document detailing FDA findings that a Genzyme
facility in Massachusetts deviated from the standards for
biologics manufacturers.

Lead plaintiffs Deka International SA Luxembourg, the City of
Edinburgh as administrator of the Lothian Pension Fund, and the
Government of Guam Retirement Fund claimed the biotech giant
knowingly and falsely portrayed that its manufacturing facilities
were compliant with FDA standards.

But the appeals court determined on June 5 that, while a form
detailing the FDA's inspection of the facility wasn't disclosed by
Genzyme at the time it was issued by the federal agency, it was
disclosed roughly four months later.

"The circumstances noted [on the form] are merely observational in
nature and do not represent the FDA's final word," the June 5
opinion said.  "That it was not disclosed at an earlier time that
plaintiffs' would have preferred does not amount to a breach of
the duty to disclose, if there ever was one."

The consolidated lawsuit stems from an incident in June 2009 in
which Genzyme shut down its operations after discovering a viral
contamination at its Allston, Massachusetts, plant.  The shutdown
forced the company to ration profitable drugs Cerezyme and
Fabrazyme.

The contamination also caused a delay in the FDA's approval of
Lumizyme, which was kept from shareholders and ultimately caused
stock prices to drop, the plaintiffs alleged.  The proposed class
includes all individuals and entities who purchased Genzyme stock
between Oct. 24, 2007, and Nov. 13, 2009.

Ultimately, Genzyme agreed in May 2010 to pay a $175 million fine
to remedy manufacturing violations that caused the drug safety
problems.

According to the FDA, Genzyme's Allston, Massachusetts, plant had
significant current good manufacturing practice violations in
October 2008, and the drugs produced there were contaminated with
metal shards and rubber fragments.

In April 2012, U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. dismissed
the complaint, ruling that investors' plausible theory wasn't
enough to support a strong inference of fraudulent intent.

On appeal, plaintiffs argued that Genzyme's decision to hide the
"litany of CGMP violations" should have been enough to take their
case beyond the company's motion to dismiss.

But the First Circuit decided on June 5 that, rather than
deceitful intent, it was more likely that Genzyme didn't tell
investors earlier about the FDA form because it didn't mention the
Lumizyme approval process, and given the drug's then-recent
endorsement from an FDA advisory committee, executives likely
thought it would be approved.

John D. Donovan Jr. -- John.Donovan@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes &
Gray LLP, which is representing Genzyme, told Law360 on June 5
that they were pleased with the First Circuit ruling.

"The decision gives pharmaceutical companies guidance on what they
have to disclose, and when, about their frequent interactions with
the FDA as a regulator," Mr. Donovan said.

Circuit Judges Juan R. Torruella, Kenneth Francis Ripple -- of the
Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation -- and O. Rogeriee
Thompson sat on the panel for the First Circuit.

The appellants are represented by Daniel L. Berger, Jay W.
Eisenhofer -- jeisenhofer@gelaw.com -- Diane T. Zilka --
dzilka@gelaw.com -- and Shelly L. Friedland of Grant & Eisenhofer
PA; Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- John Rizio-Hamilton --
johnr@blbglaw.com -- and Ann M. Lipton of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP; and Bryan A. Wood --
bwood@bermandevalerio.com -- and John H. Sutter --
jsutter@bermandevalerio.com -- of Berman DeValerio.

Genzyme is represented by John D. Donovan Jr., Robert G. Jones --
Robert.Jones@ropesgray.com -- and Mark D. Vaughn --
Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray LLP.  Its executives
are represented by Michael T. Marcucci -- mmarcucci@jonesday.com
-- and John D. Hanify -- jhanify@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day.

The case is Deka International SA Luxembourg et al. v. Genzyme
Corp. et al., case number 13-1085, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit.


GRAND CONCOURSE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Figuero Acevedo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Grand Concourse Pharmacy Inc., and
Mohammad Shabbir and Abdul Rauf, each in their individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-04141 (S.D.N.Y., June 9,
2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants full payment of all
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and liquidated damages
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Grand Concourse Pharmacy Inc., is a New York corporation that
maintains a principle place of business within Bronx County, New
York at 233 East Tremont Ave, Bronx, New York 10457.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander L. Gastman
      Alexander T. Coleman
      Michael J. Borrelli
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821,
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 679-5000
      Facsimile: (212)679-5005


INFOBLOX INC: Faces "Achey" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna L. Achey and Lindsay E. Durham, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Infoblox, Inc., Robert D.
Thomas, and Remo E. Canessa, Case No. 5:14-cv-02644 (N.D. Cal.,
June 9, 2014), arises from the Defendant's nondisclosure and
concealment of the true nature of the Company's business
operations, including the use of discounting to retain market
share and its use of false and misleading statements to
misrepresent earnings and revenue projections and financial
performance.

Infoblox, Inc., is a global technology Delaware company which
maintains a principal place of business in Santa Clara,
California.

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


INFOBLOX INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Infoblox,
Inc. on June 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of
Infoblox securities between September 5, 2013 and May 29, 2014,
inclusive.

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

Infoblox develops, markets and sells automated network control
solutions worldwide.  The Company provides enterprise and service
provider-class solutions to automate management of network
infrastructure services.  The Complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including
that the Company was discounting heavily to attract business, and
the Company's revenue projections were overstated.  As a result,
defendants' positive statements throughout the Class Period about
the Company's business, operations and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 29, 2014, Infoblox announced a net loss of $7.4 million, or
$0.14 per fully diluted share, for the third quarter of fiscal
2014, compared with a net loss of $0.3 million, or $0.01 per fully
diluted share, for the third quarter of fiscal 2013.  That same
day, Infoblox announced that Robert D. Thomas was stepping down as
the Company's president and chief executive officer.  Following
this news, the price of Infoblox shares declined $7.56 per share,
or nearly 37%, to close on May 30, 2014, at $12.96 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than July 29, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael
Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York,
New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Awaits Final Approval of $36MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc. awaits final court approval of a
$36.0 million settlement reached in a consolidated shareholder
suit over its 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.

The Company has previously disclosed that it is a party, as a
nominal defendant only, to a consolidated class action lawsuit and
related derivative action (together, the "Consolidated Action"),
which consolidated three factually identical lawsuits filed in
2008 and 2009 under the caption In re International Textile Group,
Inc. Merger Litigation, pending in the Court of Common Pleas,
Greenville County, South Carolina (the "Court"), C.A. No. 2009-CP-
23-3346. The Consolidated Action relates to the combination of the
Company, which at the time was named Safety Components
International, Inc., and a company formerly known as International
Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG"), which occurred in late 2006
(the "Merger"). The Consolidated Action names as defendants, among
others, certain individuals who were officers and directors, and
certain stockholders, of Former ITG or the Company at the time of,
and an entity which was an independent financial advisor to the
Company in connection with, the Merger (the "Non-Company
Defendants"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action
contend that certain of the Non-Company Defendants breached
certain fiduciary duties, and have also made related claims, in
connection with the Merger.

On February 19, 2014, the Company, as a nominal defendant, the
plaintiffs and the Non-Company Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement")
relating to the Consolidated Action. The Settlement Agreement,
which was preliminarily approved by the Court on February 19, 2014
and remains subject to the final approval of the Court, provides,
among other things, that in settlement of the Consolidated Action,
(i) certain of the Non-Company Defendants will make an aggregate
$36.0 million cash payment thereunder (the "Cash Settlement"),
which includes a $16.0 million cash payment from the independent
financial advisor and its insurers and a $20.0 million cash
payment from other Non-Company Defendants and their insurers, (ii)
$21.9 million in principal and accrued interest of the Company's
senior subordinated notes (which are designated as "senior
subordinated notes -- related party" on the Company's balance
sheets and have a maturity date of June 6, 2015), held by certain
affiliates of the Company (the "Affiliates"), will be cancelled,
together with all additional interest that accrues on such notes
from December 31, 2013 through the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement (collectively, the "Cancelled Notes"), and
(iii) 10,315,727 shares of the Company's Series A Preferred Stock,
having a liquidation value of $257.9 million as of December 31,
2013, and 11,488 shares of the Company's Series C Preferred Stock,
having a liquidation value of $11.5 million as of December 31,
2013, in each case together with any additional shares of Series A
Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock that accrue with
respect to such shares through the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement (collectively, the "Cancelled Preferred
Stock"), all of which are held by the Affiliates, will be
cancelled on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement. As of
December 31, 2013, the Company had a total of $163.5 million in
aggregate principal and accrued interest of senior subordinated
notes outstanding, and had outstanding shares of Series A
Preferred Stock with an aggregate liquidation value of
approximately $337.0 million, and of Series C Preferred Stock with
an aggregate liquidation value of approximately $126.0 million. As
of March 31, 2014, the Company had a total of $168.4 million in
aggregate principal and accrued interest of senior subordinated
notes outstanding, and had outstanding shares of Series A
Preferred Stock with an aggregate liquidation value of
approximately $343.0 million, and of Series C Preferred Stock with
an aggregate liquidation value of approximately $129.0 million.

If the Settlement Agreement receives final approval by the Court,
the Cancelled Notes and the Cancelled Preferred Stock will be
cancelled, and the Company's respective obligations, and the
Affiliates' respective rights, thereunder will be terminated,
effective as of December 31, 2013. The Company expects that when
such cancellations take effect following final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, they will not have an impact on the
Company's consolidated statements of operations, but will have an
impact on its consolidated balance sheet by reducing the Company's
long-term debt and stockholders' deficit, by the amount of the
Cancelled Notes, and by reducing the aggregate liquidation value
of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series C Preferred Stock
by the respective values of the Cancelled Preferred Stock. The
Company cannot determine the amount of cash, if any, from the Cash
Settlement that may be available for use by the Company after such
funds are applied in accordance with the Settlement Agreement to
pay fees and expenses of various legal and other advisors in
connection with the Consolidated Action. In accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims administrator has
distributed the required notices relating to the proposed
settlement of the Consolidated Action. The Court has scheduled a
hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement Agreement on
June 23, 2014, and the Company anticipates that, if approved, the
Settlement Agreement would take effect in the third quarter of
2014.


INTUIT INC: Suits Over Refund Processing Service Fees Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the suits Smith v. Intuit Inc.
and Quildon v. Intuit Inc., which relate to fees charged for the
refund processing service had been resolved, according to the
company's May 21, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

According to the Company, "On January 13, 2012, two putative class
actions were filed against Intuit Inc. in connection with our
TurboTax income tax preparation software: Smith v. Intuit Inc.
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) and Quildon
v. Intuit Inc. (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County).
The plaintiffs in both cases had asserted that the fees charged
for the refund processing service offered within TurboTax are
"refund anticipation loans" and the disclosures about those fees
do not comply with California and federal laws. The Smith case was
brought in federal court on behalf of a proposed nationwide class
and subclasses; the Quildon case was brought in state court on
behalf of a proposed California class and subclasses. In January
2013, for the purposes of settlement and without any admission of
wrongdoing or liability, Intuit reached an agreement in principle
to resolve all claims raised in the Smith and Quildon matters for
an amount that is not material to our consolidated financial
statements. The company accrued that amount in the second quarter
of fiscal 2013. As of March 21, 2014, pursuant to the settlement
agreement, both the Smith and Quildon matters had been resolved."


NVIDIA CORP: Appeal v. Nixing of Securities Suit Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated
securities suit against NVIDIA Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California is
currently under submission, according to the company's May 21,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 27, 2014.

According to the Company, "In September 2008, three putative
securities class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California arising out of our
announcements on July 2, 2008, that the company would take a
charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and
expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of our previous generation MCP and GPU products and that
the company was revising financial guidance for our second quarter
of fiscal year 2009. The actions purport to be brought on behalf
of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. The company
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19,
2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion with leave to amend. On
December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint. The company again moved to dismiss and on October 12,
2011, Judge Seeborg again granted our motion to dismiss, this time
denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was
held on January 14, 2014 and the appeal is currently under
submission."


LABORATORY CORP: Faces "Dickerson" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dickerson, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
Inc., d/b/a Labcorp, d/b/a LCA Collections, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-01390-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., June 11,
2014) arises from issues related to restrictions on use of
telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


LEMUEL L. LOLLIS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Borquez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Borquez v. Lemuel L. Lollis IRA, LLC, d/b/a Asadero Hot
Dogs., a domestic corporation; and Lemuel Lollis, Case No. 4:14-
cv-02142 (D. Ariz., June 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay
minimum wage in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lollis IRA, LLC, d/b/a Asadero Hot Dogs., owns and operates a hot
dog stand and restaurant in Tucson, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Lester Collins, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes , III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500,
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 258-8900
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


LENDIO INC: Sued Over TCPA Violations in Central California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Manning Jr., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Lendio Inc. and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 8:14-
cv-00899-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2014) alleges violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey R. Johnson, Esq.
          Darren O'Leary Aitken, Esq.
          AITKEN AITKEN COHN
          Three MacArthur Place Suite 800
          PO Box 2555
          Santa Ana, CA 92707-2555
          Telephone: (714) 434-1424
          Facsimile: (714) 434-3600
          E-mail: casey@aitkenlaw.com
                  darren@aitkenlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael John Manning, Esq.
          Phillip Bao Nghiem, Esq.
          MANNING LAW OFFICE APC
          4667 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 200-8755
          Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
          E-mail: mike@manninglawoffice.com
                  philn@manninglawoffice.com


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: In Talks to Settle Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. is negotiating settlements for
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways, 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 party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its
networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities, and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories. The Company has defeated
motions for class certification in a number of these actions but
expects that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in
the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of
statewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a
class was certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon
settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications,
Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle
lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in
November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and
former landowners, have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states. The settlement has also been presented to
federal courts in additional states and approval is pending.


LINKEDIN CORP: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Follow-Up E-mails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that LinkedIn
users can pursue claims that the company spammed their email
contacts with pesky "reminder" invitations to join the networking
site, a federal judge ruled.

Disgruntled users sued LinkedIn last September, claiming it hacked
into their external email accounts, harvested their contacts and
then barraged those contacts with promotional spam.  LinkedIn
urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, to
dismiss the federal class action, saying the users explicitly
consented to the challenged actions by clicking through a series
of permission screens.  The company suggested that the class
members were perhaps simply "embarrassed" by the repeat
invitations they authorized LinkedIn to send to their contacts.

The plaintiffs, including several well-educated professionals,
countered that "a few cryptic disclosures on a website" do not
give LinkedIn the right to "harvest users' email addresses and
broadcast users' persona to hundreds of people."

Koh on June 12, 2014, largely agreed with LinkedIn's claim that
the permission screens amounted to consent, as a reasonable user
would have understood that the site was collecting email addresses
from the user's external email account.  LinkedIn also "clearly
discloses" its intention to invite those email contacts to connect
to the user via LinkedIn, Koh said in her 39-page ruling, which
includes various screen shots of LinkedIn's sign-up process.

She granted LinkedIn's motion to dismiss claims for violations of
the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act and California's
Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act.  Regarding the state
penal code, Koh said the lawsuit fails to explain how LinkedIn
"has circumvented a technical or code-based barrier" when it
allegedly "tunnel[s] through any open email program on a user's
desktop."

But Koh said the consent granted through permission screens ends
with the first invitation and does not necessarily apply to
follow-up "reminder emails" -- the purported spam that class
members say damaged their professional reputations.

"Although the court concludes that plaintiffs have consented to
LinkedIn's initial endorsement email, the court finds that
plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not consent to the
second and third reminder endorsement emails," Koh wrote.

"Specifically, the second and third endorsement emails could
injure users' reputations by allowing contacts to think that the
users are the types of people who spam their contacts or are
unable to take the hint that their contacts do not want to join
their LinkedIn network."

She allowed the class members to pursue their right-of-publicity
and unlawful competition claims against LinkedIn over the second
and third reminder emails.  She also gave them 30 days to again
amend their complaint, finding no "undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive by plaintiffs, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, or undue prejudice to LinkedIn."

The case is Paul Perkins, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No.
13-CV-04303-LHK, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.


LONG BEACH, CA: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Harry Saltzgaver, writing for Gazettes, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed on June 4 against the city of Long Beach
claiming the city is in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act by not repairing sidewalks and not providing curb
cuts at corners to accommodate people in wheelchairs or with other
mobility disabilities.

Disability Rights Legal Center in Los Angeles filed the suit in
the Central California District of the U.S. District Court.  Five
individuals -- Hector Ochoa, Cynde Soto, Cathy Shimozono, Ben
Rockwell and Sharon Parker -- were named as individual plaintiffs
on behalf of the class of all other "city residents and visitors
with mobility disabilities."

City Attorney Charles Parkin said that he had not received the
lawsuit, so couldn't comment on it specifically. He did say his
office prepared a letter in April answering complaints from the
group. That letter was mentioned specifically in the lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs made efforts to resolve this dispute without
litigation," the lawsuit says.  "In a letter dated April 10, 2014,
Plaintiffs identified the multiple deficiencies and requested that
Defendants remedy or make plans to remedy the violations.

Defendants failed to provide an adequate response to this letter."

Mr. Parkin said the city has been aware of ADA issues for years
and has worked diligently to resolve them.  His office's response
to the April request was as complete as possible, he said.

"Some of their issues were very vague," Mr. Parkin said.  "The
letter explained the process (the city uses to repair sidewalks
and do curb cuts).  Where they gave specific locations, we
addressed those as well."

Long Beach has had a sidewalk repair and replacement program since
the mid-1990s specifically to address the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  It started with spending $1 million a year,
went up to $3 million and last year added another $1.5 million of
one-time revenue.

"It really is an allocation of resources issue," Mr. Parkin said.
"We do have a plan, and we're certainly aware of the ADA issues in
the city."

There are two individual ADA lawsuits against the city active now,
Mr. Parkin said.

This lawsuit asks the court to require the city to make all
pedestrian rights of way accessible and undertake prompt action to
eliminate physical barriers when notified.  It asks that the court
continue to monitor the situation until the city is in full
compliance, have the city pay all of the plaintiffs' costs and
"such other relief as the Court finds just and proper."


MARS INC: Suit Over Misleading Chocolate Labels to Continue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mars must face claims that it makes misleading claims about the
calories and nutrient content of its candy, including M&Ms and
Dove bars, reports Deshayla Strachan, citing a federal court
ruling.

Phyllis Gustavson hopes to represent a class with misbranding
claims against Mars Inc. and Mars Chocolate North America LLC.
The complaint takes aim at the labels of five Mars products --
M&Ms, Twix, dark chocolate Dove, milk chocolate Dove and Snickers
-- and says Gustavson has spent more than $25 on these products
since 2008.

Regarding nutrient content, Gustavson says the packaging for a 3.3
ounce dark chocolate Dove bar includes statements that the
chocolate bar is a "natural source of cocoa flavanols" and that
the company's "CocoaPro" process "helps retain much of the
naturally occurring cocoa flavanols" in cocoa beans.  But
Gustavson says federal regulations state that a nutrient-content
claim may only use particular terms defined in FDA regulations.
The term "source" is not among these defined terms unless preceded
by the modifier "good," according to the complaint.

Companies may also not make content claims unless the food product
contains some fixed percentage of the established daily value for
the nutrient in question, the complaint alleges.  Gustavson says
the Dove chocolate bar cannot possibly contain adequate flavanols
to meet these requirements because the FDA has not established a
recommended daily value for flavanols.

The claims about how Mars represents the calories in its products
are similar.  Gustavson says the packaging label is deceptive
because the statements are not accompanied by the disclosure,
mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, that directs
consumers to consult the full nutrition information panel located
on the back of the package for further information regarding the
levels of fat and saturated fat contained in the products.

Though the statements refer to a "daily value" for calories,
Gustavson says the FDA has not established a daily value for
calories.  Even if a daily value for calories did exist, the
percentage statements Mars makes would allegedly still be
misleading because recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that
individuals strictly limit the amount of calories they consume in
the form of sugar and fat, both of which are present at high
levels in Mars' products.

The class claims Mars violated California's Unfair Competition
Law, its False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California,
refused to dismiss any part of the complaint on June 10, 2014.

In its motion, Mars had claimed that the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act pre-empts the claims regarding flavanol and calorie
content.  It also said that the calorie claims implicate technical
and policy questions that are under active consideration by the
FDA and thus are committed to the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.

Gustavson countered that she seeks to enforce only what FDA and
the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires.  In
refusing to dismiss, Judge Koh agreed that the claims "do not seek
to impose requirements beyond what federal law requires.'

Mars had also argued that its statement "natural source of cocoa"
only means that cocoa is naturally present in the chocolate,
without characterizing the level of the flavanol.  But Koh agreed
with Gustavson that the word "source" did imply that the nutrient
was present at a percentage higher than zero.

"At the very least, stating that a food product is a 'source' of a
given nutrient indicates that the nutrient is present at a level
higher than zero, and the fact that the manufacturer chooses to
note that its product is a 'source' of that nutrient arguably
implies that the nutrient is present in substantial quantities,"
Koh wrote.  "The final [FDA] regulation includes only 'good
source' as a defined term, the FDA explained, because without the
modifier 'good,' the word 'source' would 'not enable the consumer
to conclude that the level of nutrient present is less than
'high.'  This reasoning indicates that the FDA was concerned that
'source of' claims would suggest a certain level of nutrients to
consumers."

Though Mars said the FDA is actively considering front-of-pack
calorie-related labeling, Koh said this does not present a
jurisdictional issue.  That process "is not sufficiently concrete
or advanced as to warrant dismissal of plaintiff's calorie
claims," the 18-page ruling states.

Gustavson had originally brought her claims against Mars in a 2012
action against Wrigley, and Mars pointed out that the court had
dismissed a claim regarding serving size in the Wrigley case based
on the FDA's active consideration of the issue.  But Koh said
"closer examination of the FDA materials cited by defendants
reveals that the FDA's plans for regulating front-of-package
calorie statements in a manner that would affect the outcome of
this case are far less apparent than they were in the Wrigley
case."

"The FDA's expressions of intent to regulate calorie statements
similar to those at issue in this case have simply been too vague
and tentative for the court to conclude, as it did in the Wrigley
case, that it was prudent not to interfere with an active and
ongoing regulatory process," she added.

Mars had not challenged a third prong of Gustavson's complaint,
which accuses Mars of failing to identify the ingredient
"polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid" by its common name.

The case is Phyllis Gustavson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mars, Inc. and Mars Chocolate North
America, LLC, Case No. 5:13-cv-04537-LHK, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.


MICHAEL KITTELL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerrae Ross, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. The Law Offices of Michael Kittell Sipes, Michael K. Sipes and
John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-03713-SDW-MCA (D.N.J.,
June 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

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


MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Perez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Michigan Logistics Inc., Northeast Logistics Inc.,
Parts Authority Inc., PA Austin LLC, Parts Authority Laurel Avenue
LLC, Parts Authority Partners Franklin Ave LLC, Yaron Rosenthal,
John Doe Corporations 1-25, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, Case No.
1:14-cv-03611 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Michigan Logistics Inc., supplies delivery drivers to businesses
nationwide which maintains a principal executive office located at
333 N. Sam Houston Parkway, E# 500, Houston, TX 77060.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seeliq, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
              anne@leelitigation.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Tosses New Plaintiffs' Claims in MBS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard S. Altarescu, Esq., Timothy T. Brown, Esq.,
Harry Denlegh-Maxwell, Esq., Edward G. Eisert, Esq., Steven J.
Fink, Esq., Craig Johnston, Esq., Jack Mead, Esq., Douglas S.
Mintz, Esq., Richard Moudiotis, Esq., Robert B. Moyle, Esq.,
Sushila Nayak, Esq., David L. Ridenour, Esq., Paul F. Rugani,
Esq.,  Katie Lieberg Stowe, Esq., Darren S. Teshima, Esq., and
Boris Volodarsky, Esq., at Orick reports that on May 27, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York granted
Morgan Stanley's motion for reconsideration and dismissed as time-
barred claims brought by certain named plaintiffs (the New
Plaintiffs) first added to the case more than a year after it was
originally filed.  The New Plaintiffs, several banks and pension
funds, asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 but did so after the expiration of the
three-year statute of repose applicable to such claims.  In
September 2011, Judge Swain originally held that the claims were
nonetheless timely under the American Pipe tolling doctrine, which
holds that the statute of limitations for an absent class member's
individual claim is tolled during the pendency of a putative class
action.  In 2013, however, the Second Circuit in In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013),
held that American Pipe tolling applies to statutes of
limitations, but does not apply to statutes of repose.  As
discussed in the March 17, 2014, Week in Review, the Supreme Court
granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in the IndyMac case to
resolve the applicability of American Pipe to statutes of repose;
the case remains pending.  Upon reconsideration in light of the
Second Circuit's IndyMac decision, Judge Swain held that the New
Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable statute of
repose.  She rejected the New Plaintiffs' attempt to rely on
relation back under Rule 15 or joinder under Rule 17(a), finding
those rules equally inapplicable to avoid statutes of repose as
American Pipe tolling.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Sued by Shareholders in Federal, State Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. provided updates on pending shareholder
lawsuits in its May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California and one
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California against the Company and certain of the company's former
officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the Central
District of California were consolidated. Claims were asserted
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. In November 2010, the judge overseeing the
securities class action lawsuits gave final approval to a
stipulated $10.0 million settlement agreement, which was covered
by the company's director and officer insurance policies. The
federal and state derivative lawsuits were not settled and
continued to be litigated.

As of January 4, 2013, all pending litigation in the federal and
state derivative actions was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending final Federal Court approval of a settlement between
derivative plaintiffs, individual defendants and the Company. On
April 8, 2013 the Federal Court preliminarily approved a
Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement Stipulation"), which
included, among other things, (a) a release of all claims relating
to the derivative litigation for the Company, the individual
defendants and the plaintiffs; (b) a provision that $2.5 million
in cash be paid to the Company by the Company's insurance
carriers; (c) payment of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel
including $500,000 in cash and 250,000 warrants to purchase the
Company's Common Stock, with a five-year term and strike price of
the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on the date an
order of the federal District Court approving the settlement
becomes final; (d) the continued payment by the Company of
applicable reasonable attorneys' fees for the individual
defendants. On June 6, 2013, the Federal Court granted final
approval of the Settlement Stipulation and on June 13, 2013
entered Judgment dismissing the federal derivative action with
prejudice. On June 24, 2013, the State Court entered a dismissal
with prejudice of the state derivative action. The Company was
also required to undertake certain corporate governance reform
actions, all of which are either in process of implementation or
have been implemented.

A majority of the costs related to the Company's and defendants'
defense of these actions was paid by the Company's insurance
carriers under its director and officer insurance policies,
including the securities class action settlement. Insurance
proceeds paid to the Company upon settlement of the derivative
litigation were $1.0 million. However, MRV has paid and accrued
$1.9 million in payment for services of defense counsel and other
parties through December 31, 2013 above the insured amount.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Colleges Underreport Profits, Economist Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As they make millions off athletic departments and the students
who populate them, colleges underreport that revenue, a sports
economist testified on June 13, 2014, in the antitrust class
action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service.

Dr. Daniel Rascher helped close out the first week of the closely
watched federal trial before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken.
Former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon is the lead
plaintiff in the case, which accuses the NCAA of forcing thousands
of student athletes to sign away rights to their images, while
cheating them out of their share of television broadcast dollars.

Pointing to the University of Texas, Rascher said the school
generates $109 million every year from its football program but
has just $27 million in expenses.

"What you learn from this is the net surplus is very large," said
Rascher, a professor of sports economics at the University of San
Francisco.

The 69 Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, schools net $1.3 billion
in revenue from football alone last year, he added.

Meanwhile "NHL profits are down around $7 million per team,"
Rascher said.  "The profitability is much higher than these
professional NHL clubs."

He also noted other ways that athletic departments boost a
university's profits.  A successful college football or men's
basketball team, for example, can foster a fanaticism that drives
up application numbers, brings in more tuition dollars, and
encourages larger alumni donations.  "It's often said the athletic
department is the front porch of the university," Rascher said.

Then there are the profits from concessions, merchandise, sports
camps and parking, which Rascher said schools count differently.

A team jersey purchased at a campus bookstore, for example, would
not be credited to the athletic department, even though the
athletic department technically generates that revenue, he noted.
"It looks like on paper sometimes that those athletic departments
are losing money," Rascher said.  "It can be millions of dollars a
year, yet they don't show up on financial statements of the
athletic department.  Instead of 10 percent of schools making
money from athletics, which is a phrase the NCAA likes to use,
only 10 percent of schools are losing money from athletics."

Rascher also refuted the argument at the forefront of testimony on
June 12, 2014, from former CBS executive Neal Pilson that fans
watch college sports primarily to root for the schools, not the
players.

"There's a belief out there that fans just root for their alma
maters," Rascher said.  "I've looked at a couple of different
measures of demand.  One of them being attendance, another
ratings; the idea being the athletes are a major part of what
makes a team play well.  If fans were just rooting for laundry as
Jerry Seinfeld said, the quality of the team shouldn't matter that
much."

But, he added, "in college football and basketball, when a team
wins, it has a bigger impact on demand, and when a team loses it
drives demand down -- even more than the NFL."

"Fans care more about the winning and losing when they make the
decision in watching a college football game than with the NFL,"
he continued.

The trial got heated with the cross-examination of Rascher by NCAA
attorney Rohit Singla with Munger, Tolles and Olson.  One of
Singla's tactics was to try and have Rascher say that bigger
schools with more broadcast revenue will be able to pay athletes
more than schools with less revenue, therefore giving them the
advantage of acquiring the most skilled athletes.

Singla also attacked Rascher's testimony that schools are
underreporting athletic-department revenues.  Several times, the
court reporter had to interrupt Singla's cross-examination to
remind men not to talk over each other.

Singla continued to fire off questions, trying to rattle Rascher.
"You have no idea what volume you think these revenues that are
being mis-accounted for represent?  You have no idea how much it
is?  You have no idea what the volume represents at the average
school, do you?" he asked.

Singla also asked Rascher whether he had ever seen an athlete paid
royalties from broadcast earnings, aside from special Tiger Woods
appearances and the Roger Federer v. Rafael Nadal tennis matches.
"You have never seen royalties paid to any athlete in any sport
from broadcast revenues, have you?"

"Not that I can think of," Rascher answered.

Then Singla brought up Tonya Harding.  "Do you remember the
violent incident between Harding and Nancy Kerrigan where Kerrigan
was attacked?"

Rascher said he barely remembered.

"The competition between the two of them was one of the most
highly watched," Singla said.

Rascher still could not recall a whole lot about the Harding and
Kerrigan sports rivalry.

"You wouldn't say that because a lot of people tuned in to watch
these two in an ice-skating competition means it's OK to violently
attack someone," Singla said, to which Rascher replied, "That has
nothing to do with amateurism."


NATROL INC: Files for Chapter 11 in Wake of Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Privately-held Natrol, Inc. and six affiliated companies on June
11, 2014, filed bare-bones petitions in Delaware seeking relief
under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

According to Reuters, Natrol sought bankruptcy protection a day
after a U.S. judicial panel consolidated several class actions
accusing the health supplement maker of false marketing of its
joint relief products.  Natrol has been the target in the past
year of at least three lawsuits seeking class action status.

According to Reuters, the lawsuits say Natrol's glucosamine-
related supplements cannot provide the advertised benefits of
regenerating cartilage, lubricating joints and providing comfort.

Natrol Inc. estimated $100 million to $500 million in assets and
$50 million to $100 million in debt.

Natrol is a subsidiary of India-based Plethico Pharmaceuticals.
Natrol manufactures and markets a variety of health-related
products, including dietary supplements, herbal teas,
nutraceutical ingredients, and sports nutrition products.  Some of
Natrol's biggest selling brands include its Natrol supplements,
the Laci Le Beau dieter's teas, the Prolab Nutrition sports
nutrition products, and the Promensil and Trinovin supplements for
menopausal women and prostate health.

The Debtors' cases have been assigned to Judge Brendan Linehan
Shannon.  The Debtors are seeking to have their cases jointly
administered for procedural purposes, with all pleadings to be
maintained on the case docket for Natrol, Inc. (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 14-11446).

The Debtors have tapped Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher as counsel, and
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, as co-counsel.  Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions is the claims and notice agent.


OHANA MILITARY: Military Families File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Malia Zimmerman, writing for Watchdog.org, reports that families
stationed on Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe have filed a
class action lawsuit after battling illnesses they say are related
to dangerous exposure to chemicals, mold, construction debris and
dust in and around their assigned homes.

Ohana Military Communities and Forrest City Residential Management
are named as defendants in a lawsuit filed April 3 by Hawaii
attorneys Kyle Smith, Terrance Revere and Malia Nickison Beazley.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of contract, violation of the
landlord-tenant code, negligence, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraud and unfair and deceptive trade
practices.  The families are seeking full disclosure and damages.
Forest City successfully petitioned to transfer the case to U.S.
District Court and is petitioning the judge to dismiss it.

Cara Barber, whose own family was affected, is the lead plaintiff
and spokeswoman for the military families.  She said hundreds of
"frightened" and "deeply concerned" military families who live --
or have lived -- at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Forest City
housing contacted her after they learned she filed a complaint
with HUD in 2011.

Ms. Barber's daughter, Abby, was 14 months old when they moved
there.  Abby was a healthy child but, Ms. Barber said, her
daughter began to experience chronic respiratory problems after
moving to the base.  In 2008, after two years there, Abby's
military pediatrician diagnosed her with intermittent asthma
caused by the exposure to environmental toxin.

Ms. Barber asked Forest City to allow her family to move to
housing away from the ongoing demolition but was denied. In the
complaint, Ms. Barber says, the military contractor discriminated
against her disabled child by failing to satisfy a request for
reasonable housing.

After many months of delays, Forest City in March 2011 acted
swiftly after learning Ms. Barber and other families affected by
the construction were considering legal action.  Forest City paid
the Barbers' moving expenses off base, but Ms. Barber said off-
base housing three miles away was considerably more expensive and
took them away from friends, their community and the inherent
security of the base.  Her daughter did make a remarkable
recovery.

Problems for many of the military families involved in the lawsuit
occurred between 2006 and 2012 when they were assigned to live in
base housing adjacent to where Forest City was demolishing more
than 2,000 homes.  The homes, which contained mold, sat atop
contaminated soil that contained high levels of chlordane,
heptachlor, aheptachlor epoxide, dieldrin and aldrin.  Forest City
excavated that soil and build new homes directly upwind, emitting
heavy demolition dust and debris, the lawsuit says.

Residents, children and their pets suffered chronic respiratory,
neurological and skin disorders, and some children required
emergency resuscitation, repeated trips to emergency rooms,
excessive medical care and medications to simply breathe, Barber
said.

Katie Eckroth, who worked as a nurse and paramedic, said her son,
who was a year old when her family moved to the base, developed
severe breathing problems and began to regress mentally six months
after moving into military housing.

"Luke was a normal healthy child when we moved here.  But he
stopped drinking, eating and talking.  My husband and I were up
all night holding him because he was so sick," Ms. Eckroth said.

Their son had two surgeries for airway problems and suffered
respiratory arrest in the hospital, Ms. Eckroth said, noting she
believes the problems stemmed from the incessant dust and dirt
that covered her house because of the demolition.

"Our child was inexplicably ill, and there was no reason for it.
We saw other children around us getting sick, and it was extremely
alarming," Ms. Eckroth said.

Walter Chun, former head of the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration in the Pacific, will likely be a key witness
in the case.  He was a safety consultant on the housing
construction project beginning in 2006 and performed tests on the
soil, documenting the contaminated ground.

Mr. Chun confirmed that tests showed areas with high levels of
chlordane, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide -- as much as 20
times the EPA's acceptable level.

Chlordane is a pesticide, which the EPA banned in 1988 because
exposure can cause liver damage, bronchitis, migraine headaches,
asthma and cancer, Mr. Chun said.

Forest City was put in charge of demolition and construction of
new military housing, and Forest City and the Hawaii Department of
Health developed a soil-management plan, Mr. Chun said.

Col. Brian Annichiarico, commanding officer, Marine Corps Base
Hawaii, who lives on base with his family, issued a statement on
behalf of the base.  It says the housing and soil are safe.

Chlordane remains in the soil, Col. Annichiarico confirmed, after
it was used legally between the 1940s until 1988 to protect homes
from ground termites.  Though it hasn't been used for 26 years,
chlordane breaks down slowly and could still be present in small
amounts.

When the military housing was built in 2005, tests confirmed the
presence of chlordane, but the levels were acceptable levels for
the EPA and state Department of Health, Col. Annichiarico said.

Part of the risk assessment by the military is controversial
because it assumes families won't be exposed to the chemical for
more than six years, assuming they will be assigned elsewhere.

Several families interviewed for this story said they expected
government agencies to monitor the environmental, health and
safety concerns and were devastated to learn little, if any, such
oversight occurred, despite numerous complaints filed with the
Department of Health, HUD, the military and the military's private
contractors.

Mr. Chun filed a complaint with the state Department of Health on
March 5, but the DOH responded March 28 that it did not conduct
oversight of that project, as well as the other military family
housing projects, and has no information about soil-management
practices to protect the military families.

"I believe military families should have the right to safe
housing.  If for any reason our military families could be exposed
to hazardous substances in the privatized military housing they
are assigned, they have the right to know -- that information
should be fully disclosed to military families," Ms. Barber said.


OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that has filed a class action
lawsuit against OvaScience, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, and docketed under 1:14-cv-12412-DJC, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of OvaScience between February 25,
2013 and September 10, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of
the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased OvaScience securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 5, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of new treatments for
infertility.  The Company's patented technology is based on the
discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the
ovaries.  By applying proprietary technology to identify and
purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM aims to improve egg quality and increase
the success of in vitro fertilization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, OvaScience
represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT
qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human
cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed
without FDA licensure.  Yet despite this representation,
OvaScience never qualified for this designation.

On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was
suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an
"untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT
as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational
New Drug (IND) application."

On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more
than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013.

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


PALM COAST BUILDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay for Overtime Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Placido Negrin v. Palm Coast Building Maintenance, Inc., Case No.
9:14-cv-80769 (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Palm Coast Building Maintenance, Inc., owns andoperates a
janitorial maintenance company and maintains a corporate office in
Palm Beach County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card , Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100,
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Protective Life Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to
Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Co., for $70 a share or $5.7 billion,
shareholders claim in Jefferson County Court.


QUINN EMANUEL: Ex-Attorney's Discovery Bid in OT Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that a New
York federal judge decided on June 4 that the attorney behind a
putative class action accusing Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP of unlawfully not paying temporary lawyers overtime wasn't
entitled to information regarding every applicant for a document
review project he worked on.

Disagreeing with a magistrate judge's discovery decision, U.S.
District Judge Ronnie Abrams allowed William Henig access to
alleged additional information about the individual who
interviewed him for his temporary job but narrowed the plaintiff's
requests by blocking him from pursuing more information about
other applicants.

Quinn lodged a letter with the court saying it had already forked
over every document that bears on whether Mr. Henig "practiced
law" when he did about six weeks of document review work for the
firm in 2012.  Those documents the firm produced undermined the
argument that Mr. Henig was owed overtime wages, Quinn argued.

Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox had agreed with Mr. Henig
that the information pertaining to other individuals was relevant
to determining whether the work Mr. Henig did required him to use
his legal training.

But Judge Abrams said in the June 4 order that "the qualifications
of other individuals working on the project -- and the
qualifications of individuals who applied but were not selected to
work on the project -- have little, if any, probative value, and
the burden of producing this information 'outweighs its likely
benefit.'"

Mr. Henig, who initially filed suit in March 2013, argued that the
"extremely routine nature" of his duties, which included reviewing
documents related to pending litigation, made him and others like
him eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.  Mr. Henig said he typically worked close
to 60 hours per week during his temporary stint at Quinn Emanuel.

In addition to Quinn Emanuel, the lawsuit named legal staffing
outfit Providus New York LLC as a defendant.  Providus was
acquired in 2012 by Document Technologies Inc., a company that
furnishes e-discovery, litigation support and other services to
law firms.

The firm argued that the case should be dismissed, saying
Mr. Henig's document review work fell within the scope of an
exemption from overtime pay for professionals. U.S. District Judge
Ronnie Abrams in December refused to throw out the complaint,
however, finding it wasn't clear that Mr. Henig should be
considered exempt.

In an April 29 letter to the court, Mr. Henig accused the firm of
"stonewalling" and selectively providing documents that supported
the position that Mr. Henig did indeed practice law during his
approximately six-week stint working on behalf of Quinn Emanuel.
The firm fired back on May 5, saying it had turned over a slew of
documents that "unequivocally demonstrate" that Mr. Henig had
practiced law during his temporary work.

It looked like a May 8 telephone conference before a magistrate
judge wrapped up the discovery dispute, but both Quinn Emanuel and
DTI filed letters taking issue with magistrate judge's decision.

The firm said the magistrate judge strayed beyond the limits of a
prior court order from December by finding interrogatories and
requests aimed at the "document review project overall" that
Mr. Henig worked on, and the work of other reviewers, were
permissible.

The December order limited discovery to whether Mr. Henig was
"practicing law" during his six weeks on that project, according
to Quinn Emanuel's May 16 appeal letter, which added that the firm
already had forked over more than 200,000 pages of documents.

On May 21, Mr. Henig filed a letter defending the magistrate
judge's decision.

Judge Abrams said on June 4 that he can question his interviewer
over what Quinn sought in an applicant for the plaintiff's
position, instead of forcing Quinn to turn over that information
it has allegedly withheld.

Mr. Henig is represented by Charles Joseph, D. Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Denise Schulman, Douglas Weiner -- Douglas@jhllp.com
-- and Matthew D. Kadushin -- matthew@jhllp.com -- of Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP.

Quinn Emanuel is represented by its own Marc Greenwald --
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com

DTI is represented by Zachary Hummel of Bryan Cave LLP --
zahummel@bryancave.com

The case is William Henig v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
et al., case number 1:13-cv-01432, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Redbox
Automated Retail LLC on June 3 asked the Seventh Circuit to reject
an attempt by consumers to revive their proposed class action
accusing the company of illegally disclosing their personally
identifiable information to a customer service contractor.

An Illinois district judge in August tossed appellants Kevin Sterk
and Jiah Chung's suit seeking statutory damages from Redbox under
the Video Privacy Protection Act, finding Redbox's practice of
disclosing information to the contractor is part of its ordinary
course of business and granting the company's motion for summary
judgment.

In their appeal, Sterk and Chung said the U.S. District Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly erred by misinterpreting the VPPA.  But Redbox
says otherwise.

"Plaintiffs do not seriously challenge the district court's
reasoning. . . . [I]nstead they raise two new issues in this
appeal, both of which completely lack merit," the company said in
its reply brief.

First, although Judge Kennelly found that "request processing" fit
the definition of "the ordinary course of business" under the
VPPA, the appellants said the appeals court should construe that
language narrowly to apply only to the actual movie requesting
process itself.

Redbox said its disclosure of information to its customer service
agent would still be permissive because it is "incident to" such
requests, and that the appellants' interpretation ignores the
ordinary meaning of the phrase "request processing," as well as
the supporting legislative history.

The appellants' interpretation would also render "request
processing" duplicative of "order fulfillment" -- another express
subcategory of "ordinary course of business" activities in the
VPPA -- thus impermissibly interpreting Congress's use of two
separate terms as mere surplusage, the company said.

Sterk and Chung's second challenge asserts that the district court
erred by failing to address their footnote comment that Redbox
should be found in violation of the VPPA because it stores
disaster recovery backup tapes with a separate records storage
company, Iron Mountain Inc.

"Plaintiffs failed to adequately raise and preserve this
argument," the brief said.  "But, even if not abandoned, this
argument fails to pass the straight-face test for numerous
reasons, including that plaintiffs failed to establish Iron
Mountain in fact accessed any of its backup tapes, let alone
accessed plaintiffs' personally identifiable information."

Redbox also said any disclosure to Iron Mountain would fall within
the "ordinary course of business" exception.

And the company said the district court also correctly refused to
delay reaching its judgment based on plaintiffs' assertion that
they needed more discovery.  It said it fully disclosed all of its
practices relating to Sterk and Chung's customer information, and
even then, the district court gave them multiple opportunities to
point to any additional discovery they needed.

The appellants said they wanted more information about the
technical method by which the contractor queries Redbox's
database, and whether all records or just a portion of records
were actually accessed.

"Both of these issues, however, were immaterial to the summary
judgment ruling.  Thus, the district court certainly did not abuse
its discretion by not allowing even more unnecessary 'fishing' by
plaintiffs," the brief said.

Redbox is represented by Donna J. Vobornik, Natalie J. Spears and
Anthony T. Eliseuson of Dentons.

Sterk and Chung are represented by Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Ari J. Scharg and Benjamin S. Thomassen
of Edelson PC.

The case is Kevin Sterk et al. v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC,
case number 13-3037, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.


REXNORD CORP: Pays Settlement of Suit Over Zurn Brass Fittings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement reached in a suit against Rexnord Corporation
subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC, also covers
class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses totaling
$8.5 million, which were paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014,
according to the company's May 21, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC  were named as defendants in a number of individual and class
action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in
these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing
systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.  The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria.  The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were
paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the referenced proceedings. The Company,
however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby
the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release
of future exposure related to this liability.

The Company has recorded an accrual related to this brass fittings
liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the
insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the
claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage.


RISTORANTE SIENA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Palaguachi, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. Ristorante Siena Corp. d/b/a Siena Ristorante,
115 Wolfs Lane Restaurant Corp. d/b/a La Fontanella, and Mark
Lasala, Case No. 1:14-cv-04144 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Ristorante Siena Corp. d/b/a Siena Ristorante, is a New York
corporation located at 969 Main Street, New Rochelle, New York
10550.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seeliq, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
              anne@leelitigation.com


SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Retirees May Commence Class Action by October
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Silva, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that retirees
who lost a total of about $27 million when investment fund
Wickham Securities collapsed could begin a class action by October
in a bid to recoup their money.

It comes after two burned investors had a huge win in the Federal
Court on June 5, after a judge ruled that Wickham's trustee
company Sandhurst Trustees should hand over a cache of financial
documents.

Extraordinary revelations that Wickham forged financial documents
to inflate its bank balance by $10.5 million were among the
details revealed in the court judgment.

A group of about 100 investors, represented by Shine Lawyers,
intend to commence a class action against Sandhurst after
solicitors pored over documents in 11 lever-arch folders and a 561
megabyte electronic file.  They will allege the trustee breached
the Corporations Act by not determining if Wickham could repay its
customers.

It is believed Wickham's investors, a majority of whom are from
Queensland, have not received a cent since the fund went into
liquidation early last year.

Administrators said that when Sandhurst approached Wickham over
concerns about its cashflow position, Wickham supplied a "Bank
Confirmation Statement" allegedly issued by the Bank of Queensland
stating its application account balance was $10.78 million.
However, Bank of Queensland's fund manager DDH Graham Limited
concluded that the statement was fake after completing its own
investigation.

"The account transaction listing received by the administrators
from the Bank of Queensland shows that the actual bank balance
account at 30 November 2012 was $264,892, thus leaving
administrators to conclude that the earlier confirmation letter
was fabricated," Justice Andrew Greenwood said.

The administrators also found that Wickham did not maintain proper
financial records, "thus preventing true and fair financial
statements to be prepared and audited".

It was also revealed that two of Wickham's directors, Brad Sherwin
and his brother-in-law Peter Siemons, told liquidators that they
knew nothing about the fund's business day-to-day activities.

Mr. Sherwin and Mr. Siemons claimed that Wickham's CEO Garth
Robertson handled all operations and matters relating to the fund
loan book.

"Not only was there a major failing in the financial position of
Wickham," Justice Greenwood said, "There was, apparently, a major
failing on the part of two directors to properly engage with the
business activities, operations and undertaking of Wickham."

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission handed
Mr. Sherwin a 31-month ban in September, banning him from
operating in financial services.

The potential class action is likely to be heard in the Federal
Court.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Mass. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. faces securities suits Corban v.
Sarepta et al. and Baradanian v. Sarepta et al. in the U.S.
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.

In January 2014, a former consultant of the Company filed a
complaint alleging breach of contract, among other claims, and
seeking approximately $4 million in damages, plus certain
additional fees and costs, from the Company. In addition,
purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 (Corban v. Sarepta
et al) and January 29, 2014 (Baradanian v. Sarepta et al). The
plaintiffs are alleged purchasers of Company common stock who seek
to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities
that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July
24, 2013 and November 12, 2013. The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic
candidate for DMD, and seek damages in an unspecified amount.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit in Cal. Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to face the suit In re
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, 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 29, 2014.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and
treble); reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits
unjustly conferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys'
fees.


SENECA MORTGAGE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Woodruff and George Woodruff, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Seneca Mortgage Servicing, LLC f/k/a
AMS Servicing, LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-00895-CEH-DAB (M.D. Fla.,
June 10, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catherine Jean Jones, Esq.
          LEGALNINJA, LLC
          400 Orange Street
          Titusville, FL 32796-2854
          Telephone: (321) 544-4794
          Facsimile: (321) 400-1121
          E-mail: jones@mylegalninja.com

               - and -

          George Michael Gingo, Esq.
          James E. Orth, Jr., Esq.
          GINGO & ORTH
          400 Orange St.
          Titusville, FL 32796
          Telephone: (321) 264-9624
          Facsimile: (866) 311-9573
          E-mail: gingo.george@gmail.com
                  jamesorthlaw@gmail.com


SOBTAX NY: Holder Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Holder, Charles Lambo, Chaya Jackson, Joseph Addy, Katty
Vasquez, Ronald Daize, Shatima Jones, Wasler Ligene, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Sobtax
NY, Inc., Mandeep Sobti, Anjeet Sobti, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04135 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid wages from the Defendant for work for which they did not
receive minimum wage and overtime premium pay, as required by Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Sobtax NY, Inc., is a New York corporation that operates tax
preparation offices at 882 Gerard Avenue, Bronx, N.Y. 10452

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Ave., Suite 1100,
      New York, New York 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078


SONY MUSIC: Sued Over Fraudulent Posthumous Michael Jackson Album
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By representing that the King of Pop sang on three tracks on
"Michael," the 2010 posthumous album of previously unreleased
material, Sony Music Entertainment defrauded Michael Jackson fans,
a woman claims in court, according to Matt Reynolds, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

In a class action complaint for violation of consumer laws, unfair
competition and fraud, Vera Serova claims that she bought a CD of
"Michael" in 2011, believing that Jackson had performed vocals on
the tracks "Breaking News," "Monster" and "Keep Your Head Up."
The songs are described in the complaint as the Cascio tracks,
named for the family in whose basement studio Jackson is said to
have recorded them.  Serova questions, however, whether he
actually performed on the tracks.

Sony Music Entertainment represented that Jackson performed on the
tracks as did Edward Cascio and James Porte, both of whom
allegedly co-authored the three songs with Jackson, according to
the complaint.  Serova also names MJJ Productions and Angelikson
Productions as defendants, and John Branca, the co-executor of
Jackson's estate.

"On November 5, 2010, Sony responded to the questions regarding
the authenticity of the Cascio tracks by stating 'We have complete
confidence in the results of our extensive research as well as the
accounts of those who were in the studio with Michael that the
vocals on the new album are his own,'" the June 12 lawsuit states.

Later that year, an attorney for Jackson's estate allegedly
released a statement citing expert testimony of Jackson's
producers, musical director, two forensic musicologists and others
who claimed that Jackson sang on the three tracks.

But record producer Cory Rooney and Jackson's nephew Taryll
Jackson have said that several of Jackson's producers and
engineers agree that Jackson did not perform on the songs,
according to the complaint.

Upon learning of the competing opinions, Serova says she hired
audio expert Dr. George Papcun to analyze the tracks.

"After comprehensive assessment, Dr. Papcun prepared a report and
concluded that it was very likely that Michael Jackson did not
sing the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks.  Counsel subsequently
had Dr. Papcun's expert report peer reviewed by another well-
credentialed independent audio expert who concluded that Dr.
Papcun's methodologies and conclusions were reasonable," the
complaint states.

Serova wants class certification for consumers who bought
"Michael," or purchased the songs on iTunes or on a collection of
Jackson's music released in 2013.  She seeks an injunction,
attorneys' fees, restitution, punitive damages and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          GALLO LLP
          1299 Fourth Street, Suite 505
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 257-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 257-8844
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo-law.com


SPRINT CORP: Appeals Certification of "Bennett" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation filed a petition to appeal the certification of
the securities suit Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp. to the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Sprint Corp.'s May 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the transition period from January 1, 2014 to March
31, 2014.

In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff seeks class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the
company's motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an
interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery is continuing. The
plaintiff moved to certify a class of bondholders as well as
owners of common stock, and on March 27, 2014, the court certified
a class including bondholders as well as stockholders. On April
11, 2014 the company filed a petition to appeal that certification
order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.


SPRINT CORP: Settlement of Clearwire Advertising Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in lawsuits against Clearwire companies collectively
settled three advertising cases, and the settlement is in the
process of administration, according to Sprint Corp.'s May 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the transition period from January 1, 2014 to March
31, 2014.

In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by
a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.). The lawsuit
generally alleges that the company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of the company's services;
imposed an unlawful early termination fee, which the company
refers to as ETF; and invoked allegedly unconscionable provisions
of the company's Terms of Service to the detriment of subscribers.
In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington. The complaint generally
alleges the company slows network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates the company's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the Company's
advertising and marketing claims. Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, the company charges an ETF or restocking fee that they
claim is unconscionable under the circumstances. In March 2011, a
purported class action was filed against Clearwire in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case,
Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges Clearwire's network
management and advertising practices constitute breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition under California's
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and
violation of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff
contends Clearwire's advertisements of "no speed cap" and
"unlimited data" are false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges
Clearwire has breached its contracts with customers by not
delivering the Internet service as advertised. Plaintiff also
claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's network management
practices. The parties collectively settled these three lawsuits,
and the settlement is in the process of administration.


SPRINT CORP: Cert. Briefing Set in Privacy Suit v. Clearwire
------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification briefing is scheduled for the spring of 2014
in a lawsuit against Clearwire Communications LLC alleging
violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, according to
Sprint Corp.'s May 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from
January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action
against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco
County. Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's
Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Section 632.7,
which prohibits the recording of communications made from a
cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties
to the communication. Plaintiff seeks class certification,
statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, and
pre- and post- judgment interest. The company removed the matter
to federal court. On November 2, 2012, the company filed an answer
to the complaint. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint adding two Clearwire call vendors to the lawsuit. The
company filed an answer on July 15, 2013, and discovery has begun.
Class certification briefing is scheduled for the spring of 2014.

On September 6, 2012, the Washington State Attorney General's
Office served on Clearwire Corporation a Civil Investigative
Demand pursuant to RCW 19.86.110. The demand seeks information and
documents in furtherance of the Attorney General Office's
investigation of possible unfair trade practices, failure to
properly disclose contractual terms, and misleading advertising.
On October 22, 2012, the company responded to the demand. The
outcome of any investigation is unknown and an estimate of any
potential loss cannot be made at this time.


SPRINT CORP: Conditional Certification of Labor Suit Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
The conditional class certification granted to a labor suit
against Clear Wireless LLC and Workforce Logic LLC faces
objections, according to Sprint Corp.'s May 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
transition period from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others,
filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC
and Workforce Logic LLC. Plaintiffs allege claims individually and
on behalf of a purported nationwide collective class under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, which the company refers to as the FSLA,
from April 9, 2010 to present. The lawsuit alleges that defendants
violated the FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant
regulations, regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
for hours worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock"
before, during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper
deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and
bonuses. Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs. The company filed an
answer to the complaint on April 30, 2013. In January, 2014, the
magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification, and the company has filed the company's objections
to that ruling with the district judge.


ST LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Speeding Tickets
------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Fazal, writing for 5 on Your Side, reports that people who
paid speeding tickets in East St. Louis' construction zone are now
going after the city to get their money back.  They've filed class
action lawsuits in both Missouri and Illinios.

A lawyer representing 15 people in Illinois cited a 5 on Your Side
investigation into the speeding tickets in his class action
lawsuit.

5 on Your Side first reported the tickets were illegal three weeks
ago after St. Clair County State's Attorney Brendan Kelly told 5
on Your Side the company the city hired to administer the radar
ticket program didn't "have the authority to do this."

Chief Michael Floore told 5 on Your Side the program was essential
to crack down on all the speeders who run through the construction
zone and run the danger of hitting workers.  5 on Your Side also
saw Mr. Floore dismiss several tickets at city hall the day the
news agency interviewed him.

The mayor told 5 on Your Side he was suspending the ticket program
and working with Kelly to make it legal.  The program would have
to go through the court system and give speeders the chance to
fight their ticket in court.

Ten days ago, Denise Durako got a letter telling her to show up
for her ticket hearing in East St. Louis in August.  This after
the mayor told 5 on Your side he'd suspended the program.

"To claim the program is suspended when it's not," was a problem
for Eric Rhein.  He's representing Durako and 15 others who filed
a class action lawsuit against the city.  He cited the 5 on Your
side investigation in his lawsuit.

"They issued phony tickets and collected a lot of money," said
Mr. Rhein.

Another lawsuit is filed in Missouri.  Mr. Rhein is convinced he
can convince a judge to make the city dismiss the tickets and pay
back the money.

5 on Your Side called Mayor Alvin parks to get his reaction to the
lawsuits.  He referred all questions about the lawsuit to the
city's lawyer.


STERICYCLE INC: Still Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. continues to face an amended consolidated
consumer complaint that was consolidated in the US District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, 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 was served on March 12, 2013 with a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the company imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on the
company's customers in breach of the company's contracts and in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit
as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate
damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a
settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of
a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False
Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under
seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The complaint
was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states and the
District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, the company filed the
company's answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint,
generally denying the allegations therein. Also, as previously
disclosed, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina
have issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations
made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet
decided whether to join the Illinois action.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
the company was served with class action complaints filed in
federal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and
Utah and in state court in California. These complaints asserted
claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to the company's settlement with the State
of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the company's Motion to
Transfer these related actions to the Northern District of
Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings. On December 10,
2013, the company filed the company's answer to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action, generally
denying the allegations therein.


STERICYCLE INC: Faces Ill. Suit for Sending "Unsolicited" Fax Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 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 April 2, 2014, the company was served with a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual
plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other "similarly
situated" persons. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the company sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited
advertisements to plaintiff and others similarly situated in
violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint
seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award
to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief.


TREADWAY FENTON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mildred A. Ritchie, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Treadway Fenton, PLLC, a Florida
professional limited liability company, and Kevin W. Fenton, an
individual, Case No. 8:14-cv-01391-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 11,
2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Ave.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


TUESDAY MORNING: Oct. 9 Hearing of "Randell" Labor Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion for final approval of the settlement
reached in Julia Randell, et. al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No.
BC403298 is scheduled for October 9, 2014, according to Tuesday
Morning Corporation'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 defending against a class action lawsuit filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on December 5, 2008
-- Julia Randell, et. al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298
(Cal. Super. Ct.) --  in which the original complaint alleged
violations of California's meal and rest period laws.  The named
plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Company, subsequently
amended the complaint three times.  Narrowing their class
allegations, the two named plaintiffs moved on March 14, 2012 to
certify a class on the issue of whether the Company's alleged
practice of providing "on-duty" meal periods to Senior Sales
Associates violates the California Labor Code.  The Court granted
that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class comprised of
current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked for the
Company in California, and who were required to take meal breaks
"on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present.  The
Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29,
2013.  On March 20, 2014, the parties executed a settlement
agreement and release which, subject to Court approval, resolves
the matter on a class basis.  On April 16, 2014, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized the parties
to provide notice of the settlement and its terms to class
members.  The hearing on the motion for final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for October 9, 2014.


UNION BANKSHARES: Awaits Final OK of StellarOne Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Bankshares Corporation is awaiting final approval by the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Charlottesville Division, of a settlement reached in a suit over
the StellarOne Acquisition, 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 10, 2013, the Company announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement for the acquisition of StellarOne. The
Company closed the acquisition of StellarOne on January 1, 2014.
On June 14, 2013, in response to the initial announcement of the
definitive merger agreement, Jaclyn Crescente, individually and on
behalf of all other StellarOne shareholders, filed a class action
complaint against StellarOne, its current directors, StellarOne
Bank, and the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (the "District
Court") (Case No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM). The complaint alleges that
the StellarOne directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger with the Company and that the Company aided
and abetted in such breaches of duty. The complaint seeks, among
other things, money damages. StellarOne and the Company believe
that the claims are without merit; however, in order to eliminate
the expense and uncertainties of further litigation, all the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs in order to settle the litigation prior to the merger.
Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs
agreed to settle the lawsuit and release the defendants from all
claims, subject to approval by the District Court. On February 3,
2014, the District Court granted preliminary approval to the
memorandum of understanding and to a class action settlement in
the case. If the District Court grants final approval, the lawsuit
will be dismissed.


UNIT CORP: Certification Issues in Royalty Owners' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The merits of Plaintiffs' claims in the suit Panola Independent
School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-
07-215 (District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma) will remain
stayed while class certification issues are pending, according to
Unit Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from the company
for the company's Oklahoma production. The company asserted
several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under
Oklahoma law. The company also asserted that the case should not
be tried as a class action due to the materially different
circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken
for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its
order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012, the Court of Civil
Appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The
Plaintiffs petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for certiorari
and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. The
Plaintiffs filed a second request in 2013 to certify a class of
royalty owners that is slightly smaller than their first attempt.
The company will continue to resist certification using the
defenses described, as well as new defenses based on the Court of
Civil Appeals' decertification of the Plaintiffs' original class
action. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while
class certification issues are pending.


VICE MEDIA: Outten & Golden Mulls Intern Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Peter Sterne, writing for Capital, reports that three people who
previously worked as unpaid interns for Vice Media told Capital
they have been contacted by the law firm Outten & Golden, which
has previously brought class-action lawsuits against Conde Nast,
Hearst, NBCUniversal, Charlie Rose's production company, and the
Twentieth Century Fox subsidiary Fox Searchlight.

Two of the former interns said that they had been emailed by
Outten & Golden, while a third received the following LinkedIn
message from Justin Swartz, a member of the firm's Class &
Collective Action practice group:

"My law firm is investigating potential legal claims on behalf of
Interns who worked for Vice Media.  We identified you as a former
intern based on your LinkedIn profile and are contacting you as
part of our investigation into these claims."

"Specifically, based on information obtained during the course of
our investigation, we believe that Vice may have violated federal
and state wage and hour laws by using interns to perform work and
failing to pay them wages.

"If you would be interested in learning more about your rights or
potential claims or would like to speak with us about your
experience, please contact my colleague Juno Turner at [redacted].
Any information that you provide to us could help us obtain a
recovery on your behalf and on behalf of other interns.  Of
course, you are under no obligation to respond to this message.  I
look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Justin M. Swartz"

Mr. Swartz did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and
Ms. Turner declined to discuss the case since the firm has not yet
filed a complaint against Vice.

Last year, Vice announced that it would begin paying its interns.
"For years, VICE used part-time unpaid interns -- a practice that
we recently halted," the magazine wrote in an editor's note in
December.  "We currently pay interns $10 an hour and limit them to
20 hours a week during the school year and 25 hours a week during
the summer."

Vice is only the latest target of Outten & Golden, a firm
dedicated to employment law that has recently developed a niche in
filing class-action lawsuits against major media companies on
behalf of interns paid less than minimum wage.

The results of the suits have been mixed.  Last year, one judge
ruled that former Fox Searchlight interns were entitled to minimum
wage, while a different judge ruled that former Hearst interns did
not qualify as a "class" that was eligible to bring a class-action
lawsuit.  Both Conde Nast and Charlie Rose have agreed to settle
the lawsuits brought against them, with the former also deciding
to abandon its internship program altogether.


WATTS WATER: July 16 Fairness Hearing in "Trabakoolas" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement reached in Trabakoolas et al., v, Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al. is subject to final court approval
after a fairness hearing currently scheduled for July 16, 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 30, 2014.

On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other
companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors. The complaint
seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount,
replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On December 12, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is
$23.0 million, of which the Company would be responsible for $14.0
million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The settlement
was subject to review by the Court at a preliminary approval
hearing held on February 12, 2014. The Court granted preliminary
approval on February 14, 2014. The settlement is subject to final
court approval after a fairness hearing currently scheduled for
July 16, 2014. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the
proposed settlement will be approved in its current form. If the
settlement is not approved, the Company intends to continue to
vigorously contest the allegations in this case.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a
liability of $22.6 million related to the Trabakoolas matter, of
which $12.7 million was included in current liabilities and $9.9
million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.0
million receivable was recorded in current assets related to
insurance proceeds due under a separate settlement agreement if
the class action settlement is approved.  The liability was
reduced by $1.2 million for notice and claims administrator
payments made during the first quarter of 2014 and as of March 30,
2014, the remaining liability was $21.4 million.


YUMI ICE CREAM: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sirr Rhodes, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Yumi Ice Cream Company, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-00218
(W.D. Tex., June 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees.

Yumi Ice Cream Company, Inc., maintains its office at 510 Regal
Row, Dallas, Texas 75247.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      1201 Prince St.,
      Houston, TX 77008
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


ZALE CORP: Court Denies Preliminary Injunction v. Signet Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied the motion
of the plaintiffs in In re Zale Corporation Shareholders
Litigation for a preliminary injunction preventing consummation of
a merger with Signet Jewelers Limited, according to the company's
May 27, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In connection with the proposed acquisition of Zale Corporation
("Zale") by Signet Jewelers Limited (the "merger"), Zale and its
directors have been named as defendants in five putative
shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Court") and consolidated under the
caption In re Zale Corporation Shareholders Litigation.  On May
23, 2014, the Court denied the motion of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated lawsuit for a preliminary injunction preventing
consummation of the merger.

On May 27, 2014, Zale issued a press release announcing that Egan-
Jones, a leading proxy advisory firm, recommends that Zale
stockholders vote "FOR" the merger.


* Business Groups Back Crackdown on Opportunistic Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that leading
business groups have backed the federal government's planned
crackdown on opportunistic securities class actions and warned
that the impact of this form of litigation is far greater than
asserted by plaintiff lawyers.

Organizations representing company directors, chartered
secretaries and risk managers say class action promoters are
launching claims in the name of shareholders primarily to make
profits for financiers and entrepreneurial lawyers.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors said the relatively
small number of filed class actions understated the true cost to
business because it failed to take account of the cost of
responding to the mere threat of litigation.

"There are entrepreneurial lawyers out there who don't necessarily
have the best interests of the legal system, the defendants, or
the integrity of the court at heart -- which is the duty of
lawyers," said AICD policy general manager Rob Elliott.

His view is in line with that of the organization representing
chartered secretaries and risk managers which warns that conflicts
of interest and an absence of regulation leaves companies open to
the threat of "blackmail suits".

Because companies were being forced to incur significant costs,
with no guarantee of being able to recover this expenditure, "the
current system is conducive to initiating unmeritorious class
actions in the hope of forcing a settlement -- so-called
'blackmail suits'," says the Governance Institute.

Its submission to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into
access to justice says there is no doubt that a conflict of
interest exists in funded litigation.

"The promoter and/or law firm actively seeks out and creates an
action to further its business, not the interests of the
plaintiffs -- although these may be incidentally served," writes
institute chief executive Tim Sheehy.

"Without adequate conflicts management arrangements, litigation
funders whose interests conflict with those of their clients are
more likely to take advantage of those clients in a way that may
harm the clients," he writes.

Their assessment coincides with research by international law firm
Jones Day identifying a marked increase in shareholder class
action activity.  The research, by lawyers John Emmerig and
Michael Legg, was published on June 6 on the legal affairs section
of The Australian's website.

It shows that 14 shareholder class actions have been filed or
threatened in the past seven months. They write that litigation
funding in Australia has entered a new phase in which almost all
of the restrictions have fallen away and Australia is experiencing
a spike in shareholder class actions.

"The fact that Australian shareholder actions now look like
matching US federal shareholder class action levels on a per
capita basis is a case for attention and concern," they write.

The AICD's Mr Elliott said his organization's concerns were
similar to those expressed by Attorney-General George Brandis who
has said he has no criticism of what he describes as "genuine
class actions" that were the only way in which injured plaintiffs
could obtain justice.

But on shareholder class actions, Mr. Elliott said many '"are
starting to see through the quite glib access to justice
rhetoric".

"When you really look at who is benefiting out of this new
business it is less and less the people who are the actual
shareholders," he said.

He believed the big winners from shareholder class actions were
litigation funders, class action lawyers and other experts and
intermediaries rather than plaintiff shareholders.

The AICD's submission to the access to justice inquiry supports
the Productivity Commission's proposal to license litigation
funders, but it says the proposal to permit lawyers to charge
US-style contingency fees will undermine their role as officers of
the court.

"The role of lawyers as officers of the court should be to quell,
not promote disputes," the AICD submission says.

The NSW Bar Association's Arthur Moses SC told the inquiry's
Sydney hearings this week that the association gave in-principle
support to strictly regulated litigation funding and contingency
fees as long as this was not open to abuse.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Wins 3rd Case on Quigley Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Maryland judge has freed Pfizer Inc. from a
personal injury suit blaming insulation manufactured by its
defunct subsidiary Quigley Co. for a deceased bricklayer's
mesothelioma, marking Pfizer's third straight victory among
asbestos cases that got the go-ahead last year to circumvent
Quigley's bankruptcy shield.

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge John M. Glynn granted Pfizer
summary judgment on claims brought by plaintiff Harriette Stein on
behalf of the decedent Carl Stein. Part of Baltimore's massive
asbestos docket, the suit sought to hold Pfizer liable under the
so-called apparent manufacturer doctrine for Carl Stein's alleged
exposure to Quigley's asbestos-containing Insulag product.

The doctrine derives from Section 400 of the Restatement (Second)
of Torts and imposes tort liability on companies that "put out" a
product manufactured by another entity as their own. Facing bleak
recoveries in Quigley's Chapter 11, plaintiffs have been mounting
efforts to use the doctrine to go after Pfizer, which started
slapping its labels and trademarks on Quigley products in the late
1960s.

Judge Glynn, however, determined that Pfizer did not endorse the
product because advertising literature the company disseminated to
Insulag buyers -- like Bethlehem Steel Corp., Carl Stein's
employer -- would not have created a reasonable impression that
Pfizer was really the manufacturer.

"I do not believe that a reasonable person under all the
circumstances provided to me in this case could come to the
conclusion from the documents that Pfizer was the manufacturer of
the product," Judge Glynn said at the Monday hearing, according to
court records. "'Apparent' means, to my mind, that the authority
is plain and obvious on its face, not is it possible. And I don't
think any reasonable person would say, reading these documents,
Pfizer manufactured this product."

The decision largely followed the reasoning of a Washington
federal judge who sided with Pfizer in January in the first case
to evaluate its status as an apparent manufacturer of Insulag on
the merits. A Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge dismissed
another such case in March.

Pfizer spokesman Steven Daney said the three courts reached the
"proper conclusion" that "there is no justification for these
suits against the company."

Representatives for the plaintiff were not available late Friday
for comment.

Pfizer bought Quigley in 1968 and began placing its logo on
Quigley products and their marketing and sales materials shortly
thereafter. Quigley was subsequently bombarded with asbestos suits
over Insulag and other tainted insulation, and collapsed into
bankruptcy in 2004 under the weight of some 160,000 product
liability actions.

With Quigley under Chapter 11 protection, plaintiffs sought to sue
Pfizer, but Quigley's bankruptcy court used an injunction to
channel asbestos-related claims to a trust funded by the debtor
and ruled that the injunction halted efforts to go after Pfizer
before Quigley reorganized.

At the urging of the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos PC, a
district court reversed that decision, reasoning that the claims
against Pfizer derived not from Quigley's production of Insulag
but instead from Pfizer's own failure to warn of the dangers of a
product marketed under its own name.

The Second Circuit affirmed the reversal in April 2012, prompting
Pfizer to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the petition, the
drug giant argued that allowing the Second Circuit's ruling to
stand would jeopardize the bankruptcy system by discouraging
corporate parents from contributing to their bankrupt
subsidiaries' asbestos trusts.

The Bankruptcy Code allows courts to channel asbestos-related
claims into a trust that is funded by the debtor and certain third
parties such as the parent company, in exchange for which the
companies can be granted protection from the claims.

The U.S. solicitor general came out against Pfizer and backed the
Angelos firm's sponsor liability argument, adding that Pfizer's
liability hinged on the presence of its trademarks on the Quigley
products and that its ownership of Quigley was legally irrelevant
to the asbestos claims. In June 2013, the Supreme Court declined
to review the Second Circuit decision.

On remand, the channeling injunction was amended accordingly to
allow claims based on an apparent manufacturer theory of liability
to proceed against Pfizer.

Quigley won confirmation of a fifth amended reorganization plan in
June after Pfizer agreed to make a $964 million payment in cash,
insurance proceeds and stock to Quigley's asbestos trust.

Pfizer is represented by Sheila L. Birnbaum and Hayden A. Coleman
of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Patrick C. Smith of
DeHay & Elliston LLP.

Stein is represented by Thomas P. Kelly and R. Bruce McElhone of
the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos and Jeffrey L. Jonas and James
W. Stoll of Brown Rudnick LLP.

The case number is 24X12000780 in the Circuit Court For Baltimore
City.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co Says It Needs No Official Claimant Panel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Budd Co., in a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in Chicago, said it doesn't need an official committee to
represent asbestos personal-injury claimants, since almost 95
percent of 42,400 suits were dismissed outright and the rest were
settled for less than $5,000 each.

The filing was in response to an ad hoc group of asbestos
claimants's request for the appointment of an official committee
to represent them, so Budd would pay the cost of their lawyers,
according to the report.  The company and the U.S. Trustee both
opposed the request, the report said.

                     About The Budd Company

The Budd Company, Inc., a former supplier to the automotive
industry, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. Case No. 14-11873) on March 31, 2014, with a deal to settle
potential claims against its parent, ThyssenKrupp AG.

The company -- which ceased manufacturing operations in 2006 and
does not have any current employees, facilities or customers --
has obligations consisting largely of medical and other benefits
to approximately 10,000 former employees.

Liabilities amount to approximately $1 billion with assets of
approximately $400 million.  Most of the debt consists largely of
medical and other benefits to approximately 10,000 former
employees.

The Debtor disclosed $387,555,681 in assets and $1,107,350,034 in
liabilities as of the Chapter 11 filing.

The Hon. Jack B. Schmetterer oversees the case.  The Debtor has
tapped Proskauer Rose LLP as Chapter 11 counsel, Dickinson Wright
PLLC as special counsel, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as
noticing, claims and balloting agent, and Conway MacKenzie
Management Services, LLC's Charles M. Moore as CRO.

The U.S. Trustee appointed five individuals to serve on the
Committee of Executive & Administrative Retirees.  The Segal
Company (Eastern States), Inc. serves as the Committee's actuarial
consultant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conalco Confirms Ch. 11 Plan
---------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Consolidated Aluminum Corp., an indirect subsidiary
of Switzerland-based Lonza Group AG, won approval of a Chapter 11
plan dealing with asbestos and other personal-injury claims.
According to the report, the Allendale, New Jersey-based company,
which ceased operations in 1994 when the business was sold, easily
won approval of its plan because it only deals with existing
claims.

The case is In re Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 13-bk-37149, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).  The Debtor's
counsel is Sharon L. Levine, Esq., at LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, in
Roseland, New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Stock Ownership Change May Affect NOLs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An "ownership change" of shares of Armstrong World Industries,
Inc.'s common stock may affect the Company's utilization of net
operating losses, 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: "In March 2014, we announced the commencement
of a secondary public offering (the "Offering") of 3,900,000
shares of our common stock held by Armor TPG Holdings LLC ("TPG")
and the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust ("Asbestos PI Trust").

Upon completion of the Offering, TPG no longer holds any of our
common stock, and accordingly the shareholders' agreement between
the Asbestos PI Trust and TPG was automatically terminated in
accordance with its terms. In addition, upon completion of the
Offering, the Asbestos PI Trust owns less than 20% of our
outstanding common shares. Accordingly, certain provisions of our
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws specifically relating to the
rights and obligations of the Asbestos PI Trust are no longer
applicable.

Our ability to utilize deferred tax assets may be impacted by
certain future events, such as changes in tax legislation,
insufficient future taxable income prior to expiration of certain
deferred tax assets, annual limits imposed under Section 382 of
the Internal Revenue Code ("Section 382") or by state law, as a
result of an "ownership change." This "ownership change" is
defined as a cumulative increase in certain shareholders'
ownership of the Company by more than 50 percentage points during
the previous rolling three year period.

We have determined as of March 31, 2014, the completion of the
latest Offering did not result in an "ownership change" under
Section 382, based on the size of the Offering and other factors.
Together the Asbestos PI Trust and TPG collectively sold 5,980,000
shares, 12,057,382 shares and 6,000,000 shares of the Company's
common shares during the fourth quarter of 2012, the third quarter
of 2013 and the fourth quarter of 2013, respectively. Those sales,
when combined with the 3,900,000 common shares sold in the
Offering, significantly increase the likelihood that future sales
by the Asbestos PI Trust will cause an "ownership change" under
Section 382. At this time, we estimate that an additional sale of
the Company's common shares by the Asbestos PI Trust prior to
December 2015 would be reasonably likely to cause an "ownership
change" under Section 382. An "ownership change" may result in
limitations on the utilization of certain tax attributes,
primarily our ability to deduct state net operating losses
("NOLs") against future state taxable income. If such "ownership
change" were to occur, then we would be required to record a one-
time, non-cash charge in our income statement in the period in
which such "ownership change" occurs. We currently estimate that,
if such "ownership change" had occurred in the first quarter of
2014, based on the factors discussed below, the one-time charge
that would have been taken would have reduced our net earnings by
an amount between $4.0 million and $8.0 million. This pro forma
estimated range of net earnings reduction is based on current
management estimates and assumptions that are subject to change
over time. The actual amount of the required charge, if any, may
differ materially from this current estimate. Key factors
impacting the calculation include, but are not limited to, our
stock price on the date of the "ownership change", the applicable
tax-exempt interest rate, the tax basis and fair market value of
our assets, federal and state tax regulations, projections of
future taxable income and prior NOL usage."

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI) is a global producer of
flooring products and ceiling systems for use in the construction
and renovation of residential, commercial and institutional
buildings. The Company designs, manufactures and sells flooring
products (resilient and wood) and ceiling systems (mineral fiber,
fiberglass and metal) globally. The Company segments includes:
Building Products, Resilient Flooring and Wood Flooring. The
Company's Building Products, Resilient Flooring, Wood Flooring and
Cabinets segments sell products for use in the home. Its products
are used in new home construction and existing home renovation
work. Its products, primarily ceilings and Resilient Flooring, are
used in commercial and institutional buildings. On September 1,
2012, it sold Patriot Flooring Supply, Inc. to The Belknap White
Group. Effective October 31, 2012, the Company sold of its
cabinets business to American Industrial Partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $485-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $485 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.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Corporation increased
its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has
requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine
the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In October 2012, the Corporation requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2010 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based upon ARPC's December
2012 study and the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim
and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no
adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. The
Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012.

In October 2013, the Corporation requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2013. In December 2013, ARPC stated that an update
of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future
events than the estimate reflected in its December 2012 study and,
therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based
on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and
resolution activity and ARPC's response, the Corporation
determined that no change to the accrual was required. The
Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $501 million at December 31, 2013 and approximately 19
percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 81 percent related to future claims.

Based on the Corporation's review of 2014 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March
31, 2014. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $485 million at March 31, 2014.
Approximately 20 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 80 percent related to future
claims.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Corporation after a thorough
review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington
Agreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liability
insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance
settlements, with due consideration given to applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account
the solvency and historical payment experience of various
insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements
with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and
collection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve
issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance
policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may
raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached
settlements with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation and continues to pursue settlements with the remaining
carriers. The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was $25 million at March 31,
2014 and $25 million at December 31, 2013.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs was $25 million for the
first quarter of 2014 ($22 million in the first quarter of 2013),
and reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of
income.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 29,149 Unresolved PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation had 29,149 unresolved asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

It is the opinion of UCC's management that it is reasonably
possible that the costs of disposing of its asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position
of the Corporation.

At March 31, 2014, there were 29,149 unresolved claims against the
Company.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Int'l. Had 1,072 Fibro Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International LLC had 1,072 asbestos exposure 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: "We have been named as a "premises defendant"
in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. These
complaints generally do not provide specific information about the
amount of damages being sought, the time period in which the
alleged injuries occurred or the alleged exposures giving rise to
the asserted liability. This information, which would be central
to any estimate of probable loss, generally must be obtained
through legal discovery.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts
responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and
payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our twenty-year
experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, there were 1,072
unresolved cases, for which service has been received that we have
tendered to the indemnifying party, all of which have been
accepted by the indemnifying party.

We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of
March 31, 2014, we had an accrued liability of approximately $10
million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of
approximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of March 31, 2014.

Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subject
to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, we may
be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of these
cases. For the three months ended March 31, 2014, there were 48
unresolved cases, for which service has been received by us.
Certain prior cases that were filed in error against us have been
dismissed.

We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of nil during each of the three
months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013. As of March 31, 2014, we had
an accrual of $425,000 relating to these cases. We cannot assure
you that our liability will not exceed our accruals or that our
liability associated with these cases would not be material to our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity;
accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or range of
loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos exposure
claims may be made against us in the future, and such claims could
be material. However, because we are not able to estimate the
amount or range of losses associated with such claims, we have
made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure
claims as of March 31, 2014."

Huntsman International operates in five business segments:
polyurethanes, advanced materials, textile effects, performance
products, and pigments. The company manufactures surfactants (used
in cleaning and personal care products) and performance chemicals
like polyurethanes, propylene oxides, and propylene glycol. Its
polyurethanes segment is the company's largest, representing 39%
of 2011 sales. Huntsman ranks among the largest makers of titanium
dioxide, the most commonly used white pigment, with 15% of the
world market. Huntsman International operates the business of
parent Huntsman Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 50,899 Pending Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had 50,899 pending cases alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-
K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 50,899 pending claims as of March 31, 2014, approximately
19,000 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,700 claims
were pending in Texas, approximately 5,300 claims were pending in
Mississippi, and approximately 400 claims were pending in Ohio,
all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.

Cumulatively through March 31, 2014, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 101,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $407
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
was $3,300, $6,300 and $4,123, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability.

Effects on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management
believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various
factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to
provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims,
the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years
beyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system.  Management
considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability
estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate
is warranted.

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

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
March 31, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,
the Company determined that no change in the estimate was
warranted for the period ended March 31, 2014. Nevertheless, if
certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease,
the liability could change materially; however, all the
assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are
interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining
the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to
and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of
its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the
Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates
beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably
estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $680 million as of March 31, 2014. It is
not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2014 was $88 million
and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs
expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is
based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year
payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

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

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $166 million as of March 31, 2014.
The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout
agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments
that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,
although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Nelson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling in an asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit pending in a Pennsylvania superior court, according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.  On February
23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount
of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the
amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.  The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012.  On September 5, 2013, a panel of the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson
verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new
trial.  Plaintiffs have requested a rehearing in the Superior
Court, which the defendants, including the Company, have opposed.
By order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the
panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument at a date to be
scheduled.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Dummitt" Suit is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from a jury verdict on Ronald Dummitt's
asbestos claim remains pending, according to the Company's Form 8-
K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million.  At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered
a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company,
taking into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under
New York law.  The Company has appealed.

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



ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lee
Holdsworth against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim.  The Company plans to file post-trial motions seeking to
overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the
damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York
appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and
further were subject to settlement offsets.  Plaintiffs have
requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million. Post-trial
motions remain pending. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.






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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Garvin" Suit Against Crane Co. Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lloyd Garvin
against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the Company's Form
8-K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million.  The jury also awarded exemplary
damages against both other defendants.  The Company has filed
post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new
trial, or to reduce the damages. The Company plans to pursue an
appeal if necessary.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "DeLisle" Ruling Is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from a ruling in an asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle remains pending, according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict.  The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

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

In December 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of
the plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a
nominal amount. While we believe the settlement will be approved
by the Court, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate
outcome.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Had 73,800 Fibro Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had approximately 73,800
pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We were one of numerous defendants in legal
proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving
approximately 74,000 claimants relating to their alleged exposure
to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly
manufactured by us or asbestos materials present in our
facilities. During the first quarter of 2014, approximately 600
new claims were filed against us and approximately 800 were
settled or dismissed. The amount expended on asbestos defense and
claim resolution by Goodyear and its insurance carriers during the
first quarter of 2014 was $6 million. At March 31, 2014, there
were approximately 73,800 asbestos claims pending against us. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and
other relief."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
The Company operates approximately 1,300 tire and auto service
center outlets where it offered its products for retail sale and
provided automotive repair and other services. The Company
manufactures its products in 52 manufacturing facilities in 22
countries, including the United States. It operates through four
operating segments representing its regional tire businesses:
North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA);
Latin American Tire, and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend itself againsy
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds received from insurance settlements. To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $2,700,000 (excluding
costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a
defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively
pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed
to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against
the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all
defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against
the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims
up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion
of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that
is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted
that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.
The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for
$15,000,000 and $20,000,000 respectively. The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice. As of March 31, 2014, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the
term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue
its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the
policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage
issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless,
liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and
coverage available to the subsidiary.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. In July 2012, the Company acquired NP Coil Dexter
Industries S.r.l.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 7,985 Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation had 7,895 asbestos exposure claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company was a party to 1,082 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,985 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,985 claims pending at March 31, 2014, 140
set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years
ago, have been approximately $6.7 million. All relief sought in
the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately
40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of
asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to
the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following
exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during
which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and
indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace &
Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America. In March 2014, the Company acquired acquired the
remaining 30% interest of Arminak & Associates LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiaries continue to defend themselves
against numerous asbestos-related personal injury actions,
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.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in
certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by Commonwealth Edison Company ("ComEd") and PECO
Energy Company ("PECO"). The reserve is recorded on an
undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs
associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, Generation had reserved
approximately $89 million and $90 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2014,
approximately $20 million of this amount related to 238 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $69 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to
predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional
claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no
increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been
recorded as of March 31, 2014. Increased claims activity resulting
from this ruling could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's,
Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and cash
flows.

Since 1993, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company ("BGE") and certain
Constellation (now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in
several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon
the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and
Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.
In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

Approximately 486 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which
have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:

* the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly
worked as contractors;

* the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

* the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly
occurred; and

* the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmates to Proceed with Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David J. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona issued orders dated June 10, 2014, granting
two inmates' application to proceed and dismissed their complaints
with leave to amend.

In the first case, Kevin Alford, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio,
et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0857-PHX-DGC (JFM)(D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail,
filed a pro se civil rights Complaint, which, among other things,
allege presence of asbestos in his cell.  A full-text copy of
Judge Campbell's Decision is available at http://is.gd/je5uClfrom
Leagle.com.

In the second case, Jose Juan Ayala, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0327-PHX-DGC (DKD)(D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison
Complex-Tucson, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint,
alleging, among other things, the presence of asbestos in
buildings.  A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/W8iZCXfrom Leagle.com.

On May 8, Judge Campbell reached the same decision in the cases
captioned Alec Gibson, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants, NO. CV 14-00692-PHX-DGC (SPL)(D. Ariz). and Wilfrido
Lopez-Cortes, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M.
Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0781-PHX-DGC (LOA) (D.
Ariz.).  Full-text copies of the Gibson Decision and Lopez-Cortes
Decision are available at http://is.gd/3JI9NVand
http://is.gd/v0a4Tvfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maritime Law Applies in "Dumas" Suit, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, in the asbestos-based personal injury
action styled ARTHUR DUMAS, Plaintiff, v. ABB GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-229-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), issued a
June 4, 2014 memorandum and decision granting defendant Yarway
Corporation's argument that maritime law governs the case after
determining that the Plaintiff's exposure occurred during sea-
based work bearing a sufficient connection to traditional maritime
activities, thus, warranting application of maritime law.  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/t5j7e8from
Leagle.com.

Arthur Dumas, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented
by Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, Esq. -- liz@jcdelaw.com -- Raeann
Warner, Esq. -- raeann@jcdelaw.com -- and Thomas C. Crumplar,
Esq., at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A.

ABB Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Bailey
Meter Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by:

         Oleh V. Bilynsky, Esq.
         O'BRIEN FIRM
         4925 Main Street
         Suite 222
         Buffalo, NY 14226
         Phone: (716) 980-4030

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

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

         Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq.
         Peter John Faben, Esq.
         WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA
         901 North Market Street Suite 810
         Wilmington, DE, 19801
         Phone: 302-421-9935
         Fax: 302-421-9955

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

Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Paul A. Bradley, Esq., at Maron Marvel Bradley &
Anderson LLC.

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

Dresser-Rand LLC, Individually and as Successor to Terry Stream
Turbine Company, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Ana Marina McCann, Esq., and Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Esq.,
at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Electrolux Home Products Inc., Individually, and as successor to
Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Paul A. Bradley, Esq., at Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, successor in interest to Foster Wheeler Corp.,
Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

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

IMO Industries Inc., Individually and as successor in interest to
Delaval Turbine Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill,
O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

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

ITT Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Foster Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John C. Phillips, Jr., Phillips, Goldman & Spence,
P.A..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant
and Cross Claimant, represented by Ronald L. Daugherty, Salmon
Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP & Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon
Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley &
Anderson LLC.

SPX Corporation, Individually and as successor to Copes Vulcan,
Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Paul
A. Bradley, Esq., and Stephanie Ann Fox, Esq. --
saf@maronmarvel.com -- at Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Donald Robert
Kinsley, Esq., and Paul A. Bradley, Esq., at Maron Marvel Bradley
& Anderson LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Individually and as successor in interest to
Quimby Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Ana Marina McCann, Esq., Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Esq., and Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq., at Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge W. Louis Sands of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Albany Division, issued an order dated June
9, 2014, denying an inmate's request to proceed in his civil
rights lawsuit in forma pauperis and dismissing, without
prejudice, the inmate's action, after finding that the allegations
contained in the complaint do not satisfy the imminent danger
exception.  The Plaintiff, among other things, alleges he is
forced to stay in a cell with open exposure to insulation
containing asbestos.  The case is CECIL HOWARD A/K/A ALONZO
WHITEHEAD Plaintiff, v. WARDEN ALAN CARTER, et al., Defendants,
CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-78-WLS-TQL (M.D. Ga.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/OL3Sqafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Mohler" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order dated
June 9, 2014, denying the Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff,
Elaine Mohler, in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled ELAINE MOHLER, individually and as Special Administrator
for the Estate of LARRY MOHLER, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-
1221-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/M97vpCfrom Leagle.com.

Elaine Mohler, Plaintiff, represented by Ross D. Stomel, Esq., and
Allyson Michelle Romani, Esq., at Shrader & Associates LLP.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Curtis R. Picou, Esq., at Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic
LLC.

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

Allied Manufacturing, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Marcie
J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@kernell-law.com -- at Kernell Law
Firm, P.C.

Ameron International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq., and Michael R. Dauphin,
Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

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

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

AWC 1997 Corporation, f/k/a Alpha Wire Coporation, Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Esq. --
david.page@guntymccarthy.com -- at Gunty & McCarthy.

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

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

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

Boise Cascade, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Marcie J. Vantine, Esq., and Thomas J. Kernell, Esq. --
tkernell@kernell-law.com -- at Kernell Law Firm, P.C..

Borg-Wagner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and 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.

Burnham, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis
J. Graber, Esq. -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw &
Culbertson.

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

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

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

Cleaver-Brooks, formerly known as Cleaver-Brooks, a division of
Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- mhudgens@otmblaw.com -- at
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

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

Conwed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Graber, Esq., at Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Copes-Vulcan, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Daniel W. McGrath, Esq. -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- at
Hinshaw & Culbertson - Chicago.

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

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, 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
         Email: info@reedarmstrong.com

Domco Products Texas, Inc., f/k/a Domco Inc. Floor Products
(Texas) f/k/a Azrock Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
and Cross Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq., at Brown
& James.

Eaton Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by J. Todd Applegate, Esq. -- applegate@pspclaw.com -- and Brian
J. Connolly, Esq. -- connolly@pspclaw.com -- at Pitzer Snodgrass
PC.

Flowserve U.S., Inc, as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Co.,
and Edward Vogt Valve Co., 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..

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Esq., and William B. Starnes, II,
Esq., at Reed, Armstrong et al..

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Esq., and William B.
Starnes, II, Esq., at Reed, Armstrong et al..

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

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

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Esq., 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 and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Gould's Pumps, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Graber, Esq., at Hinshaw & Culbertson.

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

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

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

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

Industrial Holdings Corporation, f/k/a Carborundum Company,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

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

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

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

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

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

KCG, Inc., successor by merger to KC Wall Products, Inc. and Ruco
Drywall Products, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by David J. Page, Esq., at Gunty & McCarthy.

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

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

Murco Wall Products, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Gregory W. Odom, II, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

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.

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 Defendant, 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..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. --
ddobbels@polsinelli.com -- Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com -- and Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
knjones@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli PC.

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

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

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

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Daniel W. McGrath, Esq., at Hinshaw &
Culbertson - Chicago.

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.

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..

Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Esq., and Nicholas B Bunnell,
Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

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

URS Energy & Construction, Inc., Individually and as successor in
interest to Catalytic, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kenneth M. Burke, Esq., at Brown & James.

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

Watts Water Technologies, Inc., for its Mueller Steam Specialty
division, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J.
Page, Esq., at Gunty & McCarthy.

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

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., f/k/a Atwood & Morrill,
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.

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.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Approval of Summary Judgment Bids Recommended
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware issued a report and recommendation dated
June 4, 2014, recommending that the District Court grant
defendants Nash Engineering Company and Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related
personal injury action styled LARRY WALKUP and BETTY WALKUP,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., a/kla BUFFALO PUMPS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1635-SLR-SRF (D.
Del.).  A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation is
available at http://is.gd/kHq5h3from Leagle.com.

Larry Walkup and Betty Walkup, Plaintiffs, represented by Diane M.
Coffey, Esq., at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq., at Wilbraham Lawler &
Buba.

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

Dana Companies LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC.

Flowserve Corporation, Individually and as, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Willard F. Preston,
III, Esq. -- wpreston@goldfeinlaw.com -- at Goldfein & Joseph.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Joelle Florax, Esq. --
jflorax@rawle.com -- at Rawle & Henderson LLP.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Paul D. Sunshine, Esq. -- psunshine@mklaw.us.com --
and Eric Scott Thompson, Esq. -- ethompson@mklaw.us.com -- at
McGivney & Kluger, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Dropped as Defendant in WECCO Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case involving a coverage dispute between Walter E.
Campbell Company ("WECCO") and several of its insurers, pending
motions are: (1) a joint motion for voluntary dismissal filed by
WECCO and Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance
Company; (2) a joint motion to substitute party filed by WECCO and
Federal Insurance Company; (3) a Motion for Joinder in the
opposition motion to WECCO and PMA's motion for voluntary
dismissal filed by United States Fire Insurance Company; and (4) a
Motion to Seal Certain Portions of Reply filed by WECCO.  This
case involves a request by WECCO for reimbursement of costs it
paid to asbestos claims.

Judge William M. Nickerson of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the
joint motion for voluntary dismissal, only with respect to PMA.
The motion for voluntary dismissal is denied with respect to other
insurers.  Judge Nickerson granted Federal's motion and the
remaining motions pending in the case.

The case is GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. THE WALTER E.
CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC. et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. WMN-12-3307 (D.
Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Nickerson's memorandum and order
dated May 14, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/QFFq1qfrom
Leagle.com.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jennifer Winter Persico, Esq., Jacob C Cohn, Esq.,
and William Patrick Shelley, Esq., at Gordon & Rees.

General Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Esq.,
Ana M Francisco, Esq., and Michael Thompson, Esq., at Foley and
Lardner LLP.

National Indemnity Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Brandon D Almond, Esq. --
brandon.almond@troutmansanders.com -- and Charles Thomas Blair,
Esq. -- tom.blair@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant,
represented by Allison R Radocha, Post and Schell PC, John C
Sullivan, Post and Schell PC & Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell
PC.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, ThirdParty
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Albert J Mezzanotte,
Jr, Whiteford Taylor and Preston.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Cross Claiment, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Catherine Cockerham,
Steptoe and Johnson LLC.

The Continental Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Brandon D Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles
Thomas Blair, Troutman Sanders LLP & Prashant Kumar Khetan,
Troutman Sanders LLP.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by David Bryan Applefeld, Adelberg Rudow Dorf and Hendler
LLC, Danielle S Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, Geoffrey
Daniel Washington, Adelberg Rudow Dorf and Hendler LLC & James Pio
Ruggeri, Shipman and Goodwin LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented
by Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
Defendant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Raskin,
Esq. -- jraskin@morganlewis.com -- and Steven Andrew Luxton, Esq.
-- sluxton@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Jennifer
Winter Persico, Esq., Gregory G Bennett, Esq., Jacob C Cohn, Esq.,
and William Patrick Shelley, Esq., at Gordon & Rees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Awarded Summary Judgment in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George L. Russell of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, in a memorandum dated May 5, 2014,
granted defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment filed in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled Carol Johnson Harper, et al. v. Anchor Packing Company, et
al., CIVIL ACTION NO. GLR-12-460 (D. Md.), after finding that
there is no genuine dispute as to whether exposure to Owens-
Illinois Kaylo aboard the American Accord was a substantial factor
in causing Mr. Harper's injuries.  A full-text copy of Judge
Russell's Decision is available at http://is.gd/meDXg3from
Leagle.com.

Carol Johnson Harper, Use Plaintiff and Surviving Widow of Claude
Alvin Harper, Deceased, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Alex Harper, Surviving Son of Claude Alvin Harper, Deceased,
Plaintiff, represented by John Amato, IV, Goodman Meagher and
Enoch LLP & Robert G Skeen, Skeen Goldman LLP.

Kevin Harper, Plaintiff, represented by John Amato, IV, Goodman
Meagher and Enoch LLP & Robert G Skeen, Skeen Goldman LLP.

Nicole Coleman, Use Plaintiff and Surviving Daughter of Claude
Alvin Harper, Deceased, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith R
Truffer, Royston Mueller McLean and Reid LLP.

Alfa Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Patrick C Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP, R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr, Dehay and Elliston
LLP & Steven J Parrott, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Alltite Gaskets, Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen M
Wobber, Parler and Wobber LLP & Dana M Wroten, Parler and Wobber
LLP.

Attorney Reuben Ernest Lawson, Jr., Defendant, Pro Se.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor
and Preston LLP, Peter Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and
Preston LLP & Thurman W Zollicoffer, Jr, Whiteford Taylor and
Preston LLP.

CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Philip A Kulinski, Evert Weathersby
Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Certainteed Corporation, Individually and as Successor to Bestwall
Gypsum Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Laura A Cellucci,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge
PC & Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Conwed Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M
Alexander, Brassel Law Group LLC &Jason A Steinhardt, Brassel
Alexander & Rice LLC.

Cooper Industries, Inc., Individually and as Successors in
Interest to Crouse Hinds Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas Peter Bernier, Segal McCambridge Singer and
Mahoney Ltd.

Croker & Stallings, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David Foxwell Albright, Sr, Law Offices of David F
Albright.

DeLaval, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by R
Thomas Radcliffe, Jr, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr, Dehay and
Elliston LLP,Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP & Steven J
Parrott, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by David J Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg
LLC &Donald S Meringer, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC.

Georgia Pacific, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Green, Tweed & Co., Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Palmetto, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas Peter
Bernier, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

Hampshire Industries, Inc., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Co., Cross
Defendant, represented by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and
Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP
& Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc.,
Successor in Interest to the Bendix Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC
& Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and
Dann LLP,Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP
& Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

International Paper Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Philip A Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie
Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff.

John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., f/k/a Crane Packing Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by Peter Allan Woolson, P A Woolson PA
& Kathryn T Kozero, P A Woolson PA.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joel
D Newport, Moore and Jackson LLC.

Lofton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP &Michael A
Pichini, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

MCIC, f/k/a McCormick Asbestos Co., Cross Defendant, represented
by Louis E Grenzer, Jr, Bodie Dolina Smith and Hobbs PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Richard Damon Albert, Steptoe and Johnson LLP
& Stephen Anthony Fennell, Steptoe and Johnson LLP.

ON Marine Services Company, formerly Oglebay Norton Company, Cross
Defendant, represented byJennifer M Alexander, Brassel Law Group
LLC & Jason A Steinhardt, Brassel Alexander & Rice LLC.

Paramount Packing & Rubber Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Katherine S Duyer, Gavett Datt and Barish PC.

Pfizer Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Patrick C
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Phelps Packing & Rubber Co., Cross Defendant, represented
by Kathleen M Wobber, Parler and Wobber LLP & Dana M Wroten,
Parler and Wobber LLP.

RPM, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward C
Bacon, Bacon Thornton and Palmer LLP & Jeannie Pittillo Kauffman,
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

SB Decking, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by F
Ford Loker, Jr, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne S McEvoy, Miles
and Stockbridge PC.

Selby, Battersby & Company, a/k/a Quaker Chemical Corporation,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Laura A Cellucci,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge
PC & Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Square D Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph
MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Cross Defendant, represented by M
King Hill, III, Venable LLP, Brendan Henderson Fitzpatrick,
Venable LLP, Elizabeth Ordun, Venable LLP, Jessica Boston Wack,
Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & Theodore F
Roberts, Venable LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and
Preston LLP, Peter Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston
LLP & Thurman W Zollicoffer, Jr, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Uniroyal, Incorporated, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by John Stewart Cobb, North and Cobb PA.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP, Brendan
Henderson Fitzpatrick, Venable LLP, Elizabeth Ordun, Venable
LLP, Jessica Boston Wack, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond,
Venable LLP.

Warren Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David W Allen,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Thomas M Goss, Goodell DeVries Leech
and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann
LLP.

Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David W Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP
& Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Horrie" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In their first amended Complaint, filed in the Cook County Circuit
Court, Plaintiffs Tracy Earl Horrie, Jr., and Judy Horrie, allege
that numerous Defendants' tortious conduct proximately caused Mr.
Horrie's malignant mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos.  He alleges that his exposure occurred during several
years (1964 to 1968) in the United States Navy, where he served in
various capacities including Machinist Mate, which was followed by
several decades of land based civilian work in Illinois, as well
as secondary exposure via his father who was engaged in insulator
work during his childhood.  In an exhibit to the Complaint, he
alleges that, while in the Navy, he was stationed at San Diego,
California, Great Lakes, Illinois, and aboard the U.S.S. Taussig
and the U.S.S. Frank Knox.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit for damages claiming that a host of
entities for whom he worked or who provided products exposed him
to asbestos which in turn caused him to incur his illness.  The
Defendant, Crane Company, is alleged to have supplied valves
containing asbestos to the United States Navy which were used in
constructing the ships upon which he served.  The Plaintiffs rely
solely on the alleged failure to warn him of the dangers of
asbestos.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated May 19, 2014, Judge Harry
D. Leinenweber of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The case is TRACY EARL HORRIE, JR. and JUDY HORRIE, Plaintiffs, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 8161
(N.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Leinenweber's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/gsH4KAfrom Leagle.com.

Tracy E Horrie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by William Robert
Fahey, Cooney & Conway, Charles A. Porretta, Cooney &
Conway, Katharine Crane Byrne, Cooney & Conway & Robert John
Cooney, Jr., Cooney & Conway.

Air & Liquid Systems, Inc., Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Tobin J
Taylor, Esq., Heidi E Ruckman, Esq., and Maura Yusof, Esq., at
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Anderson, Greenwood & Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
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, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd.

Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley Charles Nahrstadt, Lipe Lyons Murphy
Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd. & James Hjalmar Whalen, Lipe Lyons
Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd..

BW/IP, Inc. and its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Emily C Zapotocny, Segal Mccambridge
Singer & Mahoney Ltd..

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom INc.,
Successor by Merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation
f/k/a Westinghouse Electrict, 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., Heidi E Ruckman, Esq., and
Maura Yusof, 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, K&L Gates
LLP.

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

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

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

Grinnell LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Julia
Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

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

Henry Pratt Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

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

Inc Caterpillar, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer L Dickerson, Esq. -- jdickerson@wvslaw.com -- at
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael Thomas Antikainen, Esq., and Scott H. Koontz, Esq., 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., and Undray Wilks, Esq., at
McGuire Woods LLP.

John Crane, Inc. f/k/a Crane Packing Company, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Caroline Linder
Olson, Esq. -- colson@otmblaw.com -- and Sean Patrick Fergus,
Esq., at O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burn LLC.

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

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

Texaco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael T. Trucco, Stamos & Trucco LLP & Gregory T.
Goldberg, Stamos & Trucco LLP.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael Thomas Antikainen, Esq., and Scott H. Koontz, Esq., at
HeplerBroom LLC.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Shipowners' Bids to Junk Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in an order dated May 12, 2014,
approved and adopted the report and recommendation of a magistrate
judge denying certain shipowner defendants' motion to dismiss
asbestos lawsuits.  The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (No. VI) relating to VARIOUS PLAINTIFFS v. VARIOUS
DEFENDANTS, CASE NO. 02-MD-875 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Robreno's Order is available at http://is.gd/0bFUuIfrom
Leagle.com.

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI),
represented by JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID
HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A-Best Products Company, Inc., Movant, Represented By Keith E.
Whitson, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.

Acands, Inc., Movant, Represented By Douglas C. Perkins, Hartig,
Rhodes, Norman, Mahoney & Edwards & Richard D. Schuster, Vorys,
Sater, Seymour And Pease.

Acorn Iron And Supply Company, Movant, Represented By Edmund K.
John, Esq., And G. Daniel Bruch, Jr., Esq., At Swartz Campbell,
Llc; And John E. Herrick, Motley Rice Llc.

Alaska Steamship Company, Movant, Represented By Henry E.
Billingsley, Ii, Tucker Ellis & West LLP & Katherine M. Steele,
Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC.

ALASKA, Movant, Represented By LEONARD C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME
ASBESTOSIS LEGAL CLINIC & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

Alfred Conhagen, Inc., Dover Resources, Inc., Durametallic Corp.,
Eg&G Sealol, Inc., Excelsior, Inc., Ellicott Machine Corp.,
Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (D/B/A Elliot Co.), Greene, Tweed &
Co., Plibri, Movant, Represented By Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi,
Switzer, Murphy & Polito Co., L.P.A. & Stephen J. Imbriglia,
Gibbons P.C..

AMOCO SHIPPING COMPANY, Movant, represented by John G. Gaul,
Maron, Marvel, Bradley & Anderson, P.A., Julia R. Brouhard, Ray,
Robinson, Carle & Davies Pll; and Lina M. Carreras, Esq. --
lmc@maronmarvel.com -- and Wayne A. Marvel, Esq. --
wam@maronmarvel.com -- at Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson Pa.

AND FELT PRODUCTS MFG. CO., Movant, represented by DONALD C. MC
LEAN, ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN.

ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Movant, represented by MARIA A.
KORTAN, GOODRICH CORPORATION.

BABCOCK AND WILCOX, Movant, represented by RONALD S. KOPP, ROETZEL
& ANDRESS.

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Movant, represented by JILL G. OKUN,
SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY.

BFGOODRICH COMPANY, Movant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER,
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE.

BLACK & DECKER CORP, Movant, represented by JOHN PARKER SWEENEY,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE PLLC.

CCR DEFENDANTS, Movant, represented by DAVID M. BATTAN, SHEA AND
GARDNER.

CERTAIN PERIPHERAL DEFENDANTS -- A.B. BOYD CO., ARGO INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, AUBURN MANUFACTURING CO., BRYAN STEAM, CHAMPION
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, COFFIN TURBO PUMP, INC. misnamed as
COOFIN, Movant, represented by GREGG L. SPYRIDON, SPYRIDON KOCH &
PALERMO LLC.

CERTAIN SHIPOWNER, Movant, represented by CHRISTOPHER C. KOEHLER,
THOMPSON, HINE & FLORY, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE &
DAVIES PLL, RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY, ROBERT
T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES,CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY
ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON,
HINE LLP, SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE &
DAVIES, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP, SUSAN SQUIRE BOX,
ROETZEL ANDRESS, SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP & TIMOTHY M.
FOX, ULMER & BERNE.


CHIGAGO TUBE & IRON CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO
CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

CLAYTON MANUFACTURING, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

COFFIN TURBO PUMP, INC. MISNAMED AS COFFIN PUMP, INC. AND CROSBY
VALVE, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by GEORGE
F. FITZPATRICK, JR., SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., Movant, represented by JOAN M.
ENGLUND, CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.

CROSBY VALVE & GAGE, Movant, represented by JOHN CHARLES STEWART.
CUMMINGS MANUFACTURING, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

DEFENDANTS, Movant, represented by JOHN A. TURLIK, SEGAL
MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, JEFFREY W. RUPLE, BUCKLEY
KING, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP, MICHAEL J. ZUKOWSKI,
K&L GATES, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, SANDRA
MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY,
GALLAGHER SHARP.

DIAMOND POWER SPECIALTY COMPANY, Movant, represented by RONALD S.
KOPP, ROETZEL & ANDRESS.

DOVER RESOURCES, INC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

DRAVO CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

DURABLA, A.B. BOYD CO., AUBURN MANUFACTURING, CARBORUNDUM, GATKE,
BRYAN STEAM (A.B. BRYAN), INGERSOLL RAND CO., SKINNER ENGINE CO.,
CHEMSECO, NOLAND CO., PHOENIX SPECIALTY, MORRISON BROS.,
ZIMMERMAN, Movant, represented by GREGG L. SPYRIDON, SPYRIDON KOCH
& PALERMO LLC.

DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO
CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

EG & G SEALOL, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO.,
L.P.A., STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

ELLICOTT MACHINE CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO
CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

ELLIOTT/CARRIER, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

EXCELSIOR, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Movant, represented by JOAN F. BRAULT,
TYDINGS & ROSENBERG &KELLY WOOSTER.

FOXBORO CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

GENERAL ELECTRIC, Movant, represented by MARCY B. CROFT, FORMAN
PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY LLP & REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM
KRAMER.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Movant, represented by RICHARD D.
SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE.

GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Movant, represented by DANIEL J. RYAN, JR.,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, DAVID ANDERSON, COURT
OF APPEALS ARMED FORCES &STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP.
GREAT LAKES CARBON, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

GREEN TWEED & COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO
CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

GULF COAST MARINE SUPPLY CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO
CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

GULF ENGINEERING CORP., Movant, represented by MICHAEL D. EAGEN,
DINSMORE & SHOHL.

HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Movant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN,
II, GALLAGHER SHARP,COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN
C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER
SHARP.

INDIAN HEAD INDUSTRIES, Movant, represented by DANIEL R.W.
RUSTMANN, BUTZEL, LONG &JAMES E. WYNNE, BUTZEL LONG.

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by WILLIAM J. KRUEGER, BAUGHMAN AND ASSOCIATES.
INTERCONTINENTAL CARRIER CORPORATION, OVERSEAS BULKTANK
CORPORATION, VALDEZ TANKSHIP CORPORATION, FIRST SHIPMOR
ASSOCIATES, INTERCONTINENTAL BULKTANK CORPORATION, VIVIAN TANKSHIP
CORPORATION,, Movant, represented by FAUSTINO MATTIONI, MATTIONI,
LTD..

J. P. STEVENS, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN
O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN
J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

JAMISON COLD DOOR, STORAGE, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO
CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

JOHN CRANE, INC., Movant, represented by GEORGE J. ANETAKIS,
FRANKOVITCH, ANETAKIS, COLANTONIO, JAMES R. STOKES, TOLLEY, FISHER
& VERWYS, P.C., STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP & EVAN J.
PALIK, MCMAHON DEGULIS.

JOHN ZINK CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN
O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN
J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Movant, represented
by JOHN D. ALDOCK, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP.

KEENE CORPORATION, Movant, represented by BRUCE A. WAGMAN,
SCHIFFHARDIN LLP, ELLIOT S. JUBELIRER, MORGENSTEIN AND JUBELIRER
& GITA F. ROTHSCHILD, MC CARTER & ENGLISH.

LYKES BROTHERS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., Movant, represented
by PAMELA ZARLINGO, THOMPSON HINE LLP.

MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, Movant and Cross Claimant, represented
by PHILIP S. MC WEENY, OWENS ILLINOIS, INC. & MICHAEL J. ZUKOWSKI,
K&L GATES.

MARITIME ASBESTOS INJURY LITIGANTS, Movant, represented by LEONARD
C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME ASBESTOSIS LEGAL CLINIC, ALAN KELLMAN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM,DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY
LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN DAVID
HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC & V. BRIAN BEVON, MOTLEY RICE.

MARITIME OVERSEAS CORP., Movant, represented by FAUSTINO MATTIONI,
MATTIONI, LTD., JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES
PLL & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

MOORE PRODUCTS, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

MORTELL COMPANY, Movant, represented by LAWRENCE G. CETRULO,
CETRULO & CAPONE.

NORTON COMPANY, Movant, represented by LAWRENCE G. CETRULO,
CETRULO & CAPONE.

OLYMPIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., Respondent, represented
by KATHERINE M. STEELE, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC.
OWENS CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, Movant, represented
by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP.

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Movant, represented by BRUCE A. WAGMAN,
SCHIFFHARDIN LLP, ELLIOT S. JUBELIRER, MORGENSTEIN AND
JUBELIRER, ERIC J. KADISH, MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY & ANDERSON P.A.
& JOHN CHARLES STEWART.

PERIPHERAL DEFENDANTS, Movant, represented by DAVID C LANDIN,
HUNTON & WILLIAMS.

PLFFS-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, Movant,
represented by JUDITH A. SCHORNACK-SMITH, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, LEONARD C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME ASBESTOSIS LEGAL
CLINIC, ROBERT E. SWICKLE, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM,
P.C.,DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN
E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC
& V. BRIAN BEVON, MOTLEY RICE.

PLFFS-TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST.
CROIX, Movant, represented by LEONARD C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME
ASBESTOSIS LEGAL CLINIC, JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC & V. BRIAN BEVON, MOTLEY RICE.

PLIBRICO COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO.,
L.P.A., STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

ROCKBESTOS, INC., Movant, represented by GARY D. HERMANN, AXILON
LAW GROUP PLLC.

ROPER INDUSTRIES, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

SB DECKING, INC., Movant, represented by THOMAS M. DIXON, CLARK
HILL, P.L.C..

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Movant, represented by LAWRENCE G.
CETRULO, CETRULO & CAPONE.

SPERRY RAND, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN
O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN
J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

TEXACO INC., Movant, represented by MARK E. FUHRMANN, TEN STAMFORD
FORUM, MATTHEW M. MENDOZA, CALFEE HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP & STEVEN
I. FRENKEL, CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD.

THE AMERICAN SHIP BUILDING COMPANY, Movant, represented by SCOTT
A. STICHTER, STICHTER, RIEDEL, BLAIN AND PROSSER, P.A..

Union Sulphur Co., Movant, Represented By G. Daniel Bruch, Jr.,
Esq., at Swartz Campbell, LLC.

USX CORPORATION, Movant, represented by EILEEN M. JOYCE, BAUGHMAN
& JOYCE LLC, JAMES A. BYRNE, MCMAHON DEGULIS, LLP, WILLIAM J.
KRUEGER, BAUGHMAN AND ASSOCIATES &MATTHEW M. MENDOZA, CALFEE
HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP.

VELLUMOID, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

VIKING PUMP, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

WARREN PUMPS, INC., Movant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN, II,
GALLAGHER SHARP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suits Consolidated For Trial Purposes
---------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to RICHARD
BABRAVICH and BONNIE BABRAVICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.C. and
S., INC. (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), et al., Defendants,
DOCKET NO. 104028/00, MOTION SEQ. NO. 03 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge
Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision
and order dated May 16, 2014, granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate to the extent of consolidating the following cases for
a joint trial: (1) Group One: (a) William Long, Index No.
122024/98; (b) Luis R. Quintero, Index No. 102739/02; and (c)
Peter Stefanidis, Index No. 105660/09; and (2) Group Two: (a)
Joseph P. Burns, Index No. 105624/03; and (b) Albert D'Alessandro,
Index No. 114260/03, with this group being tried last after all of
the individual plaintiffs' trials.  Judge Jaffe also ordered that
Richard Babravich action, Index No. 104028/00, Edward J. DeGeorgis
action, Index No. 106915/99, and Robert Shernowitz action, Index
No. 107014/08, will be tried separately.  A full-text copy of
Judge Jaffe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Em0DCrfrom
Leagle.com.

Gennaro Savastano, Esq., Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., 700 Broadway,
New York, NY 10003, 212-558-5500, for plaintiffs.

Maryam M. Meseha, Esq., Sedgwick, LLP, Three Gateway Ctr., 12th
fl., Newark, NJ 07102, 973-242-0002, for Foster/CBS.

Eric R.I. Cottle, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, 599 Lexington Ave., New
York, NY 10022, 212-536-3900, for joint defendants.

Zachary Henick, Esq., Barry, McTiernan & Moore, 2 Rector St., 14th
fl., New York, NY 10006, 212-313-3600, for Cleaver Brooks.

Ian S. Millican, Esq., Lynch Daskal Emery LLP, Lewis Brisbois et
al., 77 Water St., Ste. 2100, New York, NY 10005, 212-232-1300,
For Goodyear.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Allowed to Proceed in "Lepore" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carol A. Lepore and her late husband, Leonard L. Lepore, filed an
asbestos-related negligence claim against a number of defendants,
including Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital.  The
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Permission to Propound
Interrogatories in Excess of Thirty and Motions to Compel Further
Discovery Responses from Defendants.  The Defendants object to
each of the Plaintiff's motions.  In a decision dated May 23,
2014, the Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Propound Interrogatories
in Excess of Thirty and Motions to Compel Further Discovery
Responses from the Defendants are granted.  The case is LEONARD L.
LEPORE and CAROL A. LEPORE v. A.O. SMITH CORP., et al., C.A. NO.
PC-12-1469 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Mbrzskfrom Leagle.com.

Robert J. McConnell, Esq., Donald A. Migliori, Esq., Vincent L.
Greene, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Mark P. Dolan, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Transfer Insurance Coverage Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fairbanks Company is a manufacturing company that has been
named in several lawsuits alleging injuries from exposure to
asbestos.  Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is one of seven
insurance companies that have issued liability insurance policies
to The Fairbanks Company at various times beginning in 1974.
Since 2006, these insurers have covered the defense and indemnity
costs from third-party asbestos claims filed against The Fairbanks
Company.  In May 2013, Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Company, which
issued primary liability insurance policies to The Fairbanks
Company between 1987 and 1993, was placed into liquidation in
Illinois.  In an action, Liberty Mutual seeks a declaratory
judgment that it is not required to cover any portion of the share
of defense and indemnity costs previously covered by Lumberman's.
Liberty Mutual also seeks reimbursement from The Fairbanks Company
for any payments made to The Fairbanks Company that are in excess
of Liberty Mutual's allocable share, according to Liberty Mutual's
time on the risk.

In an opinion and order dated May 5, 2014, Judge John G. Koeltl of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, denied Fairbank's motion to transfer the action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
where a related action involving all of the remaining solvent
insurers who have provided defense and indemnity costs to
Fairbanks is pending.  Judge Koeltl also denied as moot the motion
to stay or dismiss the action.

The case is LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE
FAIRBANKS COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 13 CIV. 3755 (JGK)(S.D.N.Y.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Koeltl's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/27QjFLfrom Leagle.com.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd
Andrew Gura, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass & Mark Joseph Weber,
Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.  The Fairbanks Company,
Defendant, represented by Andrew M Roman, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C.,
David F. Russey, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. & Seth Michael Choset,
Weinberg, Kaley, Gross & Pergament, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling in "Lang" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, affirmed, in an opinion released on May 2, 2014, the
order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, entered Sep. 28, 2012.
The order, among other things, denied the motions of defendants
Roper Pump Company and Crane Co. to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint against them.

The case is IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to LARRY P. LANG AND BARBARA LANG, Plaintiffs-
Respondents, v. CRANE CO., ROPER PUMP COMPANY, Defendants-
Appellants, ET AL., Defendants, 480 CA 13-01415 (N.Y. App. Div.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HD37c2from Leagle.com.

K & L Gates LLP, New York City (Angela Digiglio Of Counsel), For
Defendant-Appellant Crane Co.  Malaby & Bradley, LLC, New York
City (David P. Schaffer Of Counsel), For Defendant-Appellant Roper
Pump Company.  Weitz & Luxenberg, Pc, New York City (Pierre Ratzki
Of Counsel), For Plaintiffs-Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Bill Would Target "Double-Dipping" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Jarvis, writing for News Observer, reported that North
Carolina lawmakers are being asked to put new restrictions on
asbestos lawsuits after a federal bankruptcy judge's withering
criticism earlier this year of plaintiffs' attorneys in some of
the cases.

Judge George Hodges in Charlotte said there was a "startling
pattern of misrepresentation" by the attorneys that put a
disproportionate share of blame on a single company, Garlock
Sealing Technology. He said plaintiffs had denied knowing they had
been exposed to other asbestos products, which had the effect of
inflating Garlock's culpability. But they later filed claims with
asbestos trusts that have been set up during bankruptcy
proceedings alleging that they had been exposed to those products.

Defense attorneys called the process of filing claims against
multiple products one at a time double-dipping and have said they
wanted to expose the practice in hopes that state legislators will
stop it.

A provision addressing this has been inserted into a bill dealing
with unrelated legal issues, Senate Bill 648, which a senate
judiciary committee is scrutinizing. It would require those who
sue to recover damages from exposure to asbestos to disclose all
other claims they have filed or might file, and the disposition of
those claims.

It would also force plaintiffs to turn over more information
during the discovery process. And it would also delay trials for
at least six months after a claim is filed and impose other
scheduling restrictions.

Kirk Warner, a civil defense attorney in Raleigh, said out-of-
state law firms are scouring for companies to sue, because most of
the asbestos claims have already driven the majority of companies
into bankruptcy.

"This is about getting the evidence before the juries of North
Carolina in a responsible manner," Anderson told the committee.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say the bill would further harm those
suffering from exposure to the material.

"The impact is to delay individuals from being able to have their
day in court," Greensboro lawyer Janet Ward Black told
legislators.

Several members of the committee who are lawyers had concerns
about the bill. They say current law already accomplishes the same
protections and question whether the state can tell federal courts
what to do.

Sen. Thom Goolsby, a Wilmington Republican, said in the Garlock
case some people recovered more than they should have and the
defendant paid more than it should have. "That's fraud," he said.
"Clearly, that's wrong and shouldn't happen. We have things in law
to deal with that."

The committee is expected to discuss the bill further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calls For Register of Fibro-Containing Properties
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that Mr Fluffy was the name of a building
insulation company that operated in the Australian Capital
Territory and New South Wales during the 1950s and 1960s.  It was
the only such business in the world that used asbestos in a
particularly dangerous form, pumping loose asbestos into the
ceilings of homes and businesses. Decades on, homeowners are still
discovering their homes are contaminated with the deadly fibres.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Children Exposed to Deadly Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leesha McKenny, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that a Sydney deputy mayor and property developer has had to
temporarily close one of his construction sites after claims
potentially fatal asbestos was handled incorrectly.

Residents complained about the Lidcombe site, owned by Auburn
Council's Salim Mehajer and located near a school, after clouds of
dust choked the surrounding area.

Demolition material billowing across John Street was at one point
so extreme that a bakery resorted to covering its bread in
protective plastic.  A parent concerned about "dust blowing
everywhere" while walking her child to the nearby Lidcombe Public
School complained to the construction union, which then found the
asbestos during an inspection on May 9.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union organizer Mansour
Razaghi said he became alarmed after seeing workers without
complete asbestos protective gear working in close proximity to
passing school children.

"The kids were just one or two metres away from the excavation
machine and from where a worker was hand-picking the asbestos
fragments from the soil," he said.

The site also lacked appropriate fencing, public warning signs
about asbestos and decontamination for trucks and workers leaving
the site, Mr Razaghi said.

However, Cr Mehajer accused "a third party" of planting some of
the potentially deadly material in a bid to discredit him.
Cr Mehajer said long-buried asbestos had been found but later
questioned the quantity, professing to be "familiar with every
soil grain" at the John Street address.

"For me to come across contaminated soil with asbestos really does
raise concerns to who trespasses my site after hours and dumps
such hazardous material to target me," Cr Mehajer said in an
email.

Asked who he thought was behind such a plot, Cr Mehajer responded:
"Maybe you?"

But another Auburn councillor, Tony Oldfield, dismissed Cr
Mehajer's suspicions as "a really stupid comment".

"The reason we found out about asbestos was by accident," said Cr
Oldfield. "The complaints from local residents were actually about
the dust coming from the site."

Mr Razaghi claims asbestos sheeting was also being removed from an
adjoining Ann Street property owned by Cr Mehajer and damaged by
fire.

Work has resumed at the site late in May.

A Department of Education and Communities spokesman said Lidcombe
Public School had been unaware of the asbestos exposure when
contacted by Fairfax Media.  But Cr Mehajer denied that there had
been any safety breaches by his company, Sydney Project Group, or
its subcontractor, pointing to an air-monitoring report that found
calculated concentrations of asbestos fibres to be less than the
reporting limit of 0.01 fibres/mL.

"I do go that extra mile and undertake further [safety] procedures
[that] not even a site the size of Barangaroo will undertake," he
said.

WorkCover said it was satisfied with the asbestos management after
visiting the Lidcombe site.  Auburn Council said it would continue
to monitor compliance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Illnesses Could Result in Separate Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
asbestosis lawsuits and mesothelioma lawsuits, both linked to a
person's exposure to asbestos, involve a variety of complicated
claims often concerning a number of plaintiffs. Because asbestosis
and mesothelioma can take a long time to develop, there can be
many factors involved in an asbestos lawsuit, such as the
plaintiff's lifestyle, other jobs and proving who is responsible
for the asbestos exposure. Recently, a court ruled that just
because a plaintiff has settled an asbestosis lawsuit and signed a
release form, that does not mean a future lawsuit cannot also be
filed.

According to reports, Dolores Blackmon, who had her asbestos
lawsuit thrown out of court in 2009 because of a prior settlement,
has had her lawsuit revived by a Tennessee appeals court. At issue
was Blackmon's husband's exposure to asbestos. In 2002, Dophus H.
Blackmon settled a Federal Employers' Liability Act lawsuit for
$28,000 against his employer. That lawsuit alleged he developed
asbestosis due to his approximately 40 years working for Illinois
Central Railroad Co, where he was allegedly exposed to toxic
substances including asbestos.

When he agreed to the settlement, Blackmon also signed a release
that freed Illinois Central from liability for future claims
resulting from his asbestos exposure.

Dolores later filed a lawsuit after her husband died of
mesothelioma. In 2009, that lawsuit was thrown out because the
court found that the previous release was enforceable and barred
Dolores' lawsuit. But a Tennessee appeals court found that the
release from the previous lawsuit did not bar the second lawsuit,
leaving Dolores free to continue with her claim. The appeals court
ruled that there was no proof that the release was meant to
include future claims for mesothelioma and that Blackmon likely
did not know he was at risk of developing mesothelioma, when he
signed the release.

In its written opinion, the court cited the findings in a previous
lawsuit, Wicker v. Consolidated Rail Corp. In that case, the court
found that some liability releases were blanket forms, which "did
not demonstrate the employees knew of the actual risks to which
they were exposed and from which the employer was being released."
Because the plaintiffs could not have known about their actual
health risks, they could not have properly waived their claims for
chemical exposure.

Furthermore, the court in the Blackmon lawsuit found that although
mesothelioma was referenced in the release, it was "buried in a
laundry list of other substances and diseases." As a result, it
allowed Blackmon's lawsuit to be revived.

The lawsuit is Dolores Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.,
case number C-08-280, in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at
Jackson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Axing of Fibro Watchdog Shocks Head
----------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a
battle is looming over the fate of the Australian federal
government's Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, which was
earmarked for axing in the budget papers.

National asbestos support groups, lawyers and unions in Austrralia
say the public will suffer continued deadly exposure if the agency
is abolished.  An estimated 40,000 people are expected to die in a
third wave of asbestos-related disease following contact with the
carcinogen in their homes and workplaces.  The national commission
of audit recommended this month that the only federal body
addressing asbestos management and safety be abolished as a cost-
saving measure.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said in budget week it was one of
a number of agencies facing the axe because the Coalition
considers them to be "window dressing" and that they were being
"misused for public relations purposes".

Agency head Peter Tighe said he had been shocked by the
announcement. No one from the Department of Finance had contacted
him or his staff to discuss their work before the commission of
audit or budget.

The agency was set up last year with support from the Coalition.
It had a $12 million budget over four years, with an additional $3
million to deliver the National Strategic Plan on Asbestos.
Australia has the highest per capital rate of asbestos disease in
the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Fibro Complaints Rise by 350% After Quake
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tess McClure, writing for The Press, reported that workers
complaining of asbestos exposure in Canterbury, New Zealand, have
increased by 350 per cent following the Christchurch earthquakes.

But with asbestos not covered by health and safety notification
laws, companies are not obligated to report it, and the scope of
the problem may be much larger.

In the last two years, government workplace health and safety
regulator Worksafe has shut down the sites of Christchurch
companies with 33 prohibition notices for unsafe asbestos removal.

Worksafe Canterbury rebuild health and safety director Kathryn
Heiler said that, despite increasing training and awareness,
companies were still demolishing buildings without checking for
asbestos.

"Our inspectors are seeing too many properties throughout the
region being demolished before asbestos has been properly
identified and appropriate controls have been put in place," she
said. "This is simply not acceptable."

Complaints to Worksafe of asbestos exposure jumped from 16 in 2010
to more than 70 last year, a 350 per cent increase.  And
notifications of being exposed unsafely to asbestos recorded on
the voluntary National Asbestos Register have tripled from pre-
quake levels to 61.

Data collected by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
shows a huge amount of asbestos work being done in Christchurch.
They record 560 notifications of asbestos work from July 2012 to
May 2013 -- compared to 48 in Auckland and 40 in Wellington.

Asbestos was a common building material in Kiwi homes until its
carcinogenic properties were discovered in the 1980s.  Enclosed
and undisturbed, it is benign, but as post-quake deconstruction
ramps up some demolition companies are not testing for the
substance properly.

A demolition worker speaking to The Press anonymously said when he
first began in demolition in 2013, the company did not test for
asbestos, wear safety gear or have safety procedures for dealing
with the substance.

"We had nothing. It wasn't talked about at all. Asbestos was like
this sort of myth. We weren't testing the buildings we
demolished."

He estimates around half the houses they demolished in that time
period could have been asbestos contaminated.

"Only now, looking back, in hindsight . . . pretty much everything
we touched could have had asbestos in it."

At the end of 2013 company training began, and safety procedures
were put in place, and the team realised how much exposure they
may have already had.

"It was a big shock. Most people felt pretty depressed. Even our
foreman was like 'Oh, my God,' because he'd been doing demolition
for two years, pulling down buildings and breathing this stuff
in."

He had not laid a complaint or registered on the exposure
registry, and believed many others would not bother.

A Worksafe spokesperson said employers were not obligated to
report if employees were exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos exposure was not included in the legislation criteria and
could not be recorded as a serious harm notification.

Worksafe had issued 33 prohibition notices to 25 companies since
2012 for asbestos, including Wheelers Construction.

Wheelers office manager Suzy Bragg said initially there were no
clear guidelines for asbestos removal in residential homes.

"When we first started [after the earthquakes], no-one really knew
what the asbestos requirements were.

"It wasn't till the end of 2012 that anyone even started thinking
about asbestos."

Bragg said Wheelers followed all legal requirements as they
learned of them. She said the company had responded to each of
their two Worksafe prohibition notices and fixed the problem
within 24 hours.

University of Canterbury Toxicology Professor Ian Shaw said health
effects from asbestos would only emerge years after exposure.  He
said high exposure over several years was needed for serious
effects to be likely, but there was no "minimum exposure" to cause
cancer.

"In theory you only need one asbestos fibre, and for that fibre
get into the right place into the lungs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Producer Managers Jailed for Fibro Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
AGI reported that a court sentenced 27 managers of Italian steel
producer Ilva to prison sentences over the deaths of 15 workers
due to asbestos exposure in the 2004 to 2010 period.  Director Mr
Sergio Noce was sentenced to nine years and six months and Mr
Sergio Nove director in another period, was sentenced to nine
years in prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare to Close Tweed Museum Building
-----------------------------------------------------------
Echo Net Daily reported that the Tweed Regional Museum, in New
South Wales, Australia, is set to close one of its buildings
because of problems with asbestos and other issues.

The old RSL Hall at the museum's Tweed Heads West site in Kennedy
Drive was slated to be closed to the public from June 2, after a
recent investigation determined the building was unsafe.  The
building was a former RSL meeting venue, built in 1941 and moved
to its present location a number of years ago.

A Tweed Shire Council spokesperson said the problems with asbestos
and other issues could mean the building had reached the end of
its life.

'The asbestos material in the building has been damaged and
represents an unacceptable public workplace and safety issue,' the
spokesman said in a statement.

Further investigations by the the Tweed Heads Historical Society
Inc and the council would ensure all options for the building were
considered.

During the closure, research material will be relocated to the
court house building while the collection on display will be
temporarily relocated to the Tweed Regional Museum's purpose-built
storage facility.

The Museum will continue to operate and three buildings will
remain on the site.  They are the old Tweed Heads Court House,
which is the headquarters of the Tweed Heads Historical Society
Inc, Boyd's fishing shed and the deckhouse.

Society president Joan Smith said the society would continue to
provide a research resource centre from the court house building
while working with the council to improve the collections on
display.

The Tweed Regional Museum is a Tweed Shire Council community
facility, established in 2004, with the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding between Council and the Murwillumbah, Tweed Heads
and Uki, and South Arm historical societies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Blamed for Death of Rawtenstall Poet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Carley, writing for This Is Lancashire, reported that a
renowned poet's death was caused by his former career in the
building trade, an inquest in Burnley, England, heard.

John Carley, 58, died last New Year's Eve after a long battle with
mesothelioma, a cancer associated with exposure to asbestos, East
Lancashire Coroner's Court was told.  He had made a name for
himself as a composer of rengu, a form of linked-verse Japanese
poetry and was an editor of the online magazine Simply Haiku. But
Mr Carley, of Schofield Road, Rawten-stall, had been undergoing
treatment for cancer since being diagnosed in 2010.

The hearing was told he had been under the care of specialists at
Wythenshaw and Christies hospitals in Greater Manchester, and was
latterly a patient at the Royal Blackburn Hospital.

In a statement from his wife Mary, it was said that Mr Carley had
a 'hard working life' before he took up creative writing. The
inquest was told he worked 12-hour shifts, five or six days a
week, for a plastic injection moulding firm in Birmingham in 1977
and used to return home 'covered in dust'.

Later he worked on building sites in northern Italy in the mid-
80s, where he did a number of jobs involving domestic and business
conversions, working on suspended ceilings and fittings, without
protective clothing or masks being provided. Mrs Carley said his
creative writing career began in 1987. Recording an industrial
diseases verdict, East Lancashire coroner Richard Taylor said his
earlier career had exposed him to dust which caused his mes-
othelioma, and noted a comp-ensation claim over this had already
been settled.

Devotees of Mr Carley's works have been in discussions over the
anticipated posthumous publication of a new collection of his
poetry, under the title Renku Reckoner, and the possible creation
of a related website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fletchers Defends Handling of Toxic Dust
---------------------------------------------------------
Laura Bootham, writing for Radio New Zealand, reported that
WorkSafe has applied to the Christchurch District Court for an
extension of time to complete a fifth investigation into the
company. The previous investigations brought no charges.

WorkSafe is examining how Fletchers goes about containing any
asbestos it finds in the houses it repairs.

Fletcher Building said it had engaged with the health and safety
auditor since the home repair programme began over how it handled
all hazards, including asbestos.

Documents obtained by Radio New Zealand News under the Official
Information Act show that WorkSafe is investigating work carried
out by Fletcher Construction on behalf of the Earthquake
Commission.  It is understood there were problems with how
Fletchers was dealing with asbestos in houses it was repairing.

WorkSafe confirmed that in February this year that it was
investigating four cases.

The WorkSafe documents show Fletchers had only been voluntarily
sharing its asbestos exposure notifications in Canterbury with
WorkSafe since August last year and there were 18 cases of
asbestos exposure reported to WorkSafe by Fletchers by the end of
December 2013.  It is not a legal requirement for it to notify
WorkSafe about cases of suspected asbestos exposure.

The documents reveal the workplace safety regulator and Fletchers
began discussing the lessons learnt from those cases in February
this year. They also show that in May 2011, a meeting took place
between a health and safety inspector, an Earthquake Commission
official and Fletchers about one contractor's poor management of
asbestos.

Documents obtained under the OIA from the Earthquake Commission
show that contractors were provided with a formalised process for
identifying asbestos-containing materials, the testing of it, and
the removal process once what was described as a "first
directional document" was finalised on 19 January 2011.

As at December 31, 2013, 59 homes have been closed down because of
potential exposure to asbestos out of over 51,000 completed
repairs.

Radio New Zealand asked EQC how many contractors could have been
exposed to asbestos and it responded by saying "it is not possible
to quantify that risk". It said while Fletchers maintains records
of accredited main contractors within claims files, there is no
centralised database recording the repair methods used in
individual properties.

EQC says the potential exposure to asbestos in the Canterbury Home
Repair programme is low due to the processes in place to manage
that risk.

WorkSafe says as part of the changes to the health and safety
legislation in 2014, the Asbestos Regulations are also being
reviewed and are due for completion in 2015.

Problem far greater -- lawyer

A lawyer representing people exposed to asbestos in the
Christchurch rebuild says the problem is far greater than anybody
understands.

David Beck does not believe the number of complaints is a true
reflection of the situation. He said he had heard anecdotally that
contractors were not complaining about asbestos exposure because
they were afraid of losing their jobs.  Mr Beck said the system
was failing because it relied on voluntary codes to be complied
with, without a rigourous enforcement system.

Council of Trade Unions policy director Bill Rosenberg said the
Government had a moral obligation to take urgent action.  He said
all asbestos finds in Christchurch should be registered and it
should be notified in the building's LIM report.

Contractors may face questions, says PM

Prime Minister John Key said some rebuild contractors may have to
answer questions about potential asbestos exposure.  Mr Key said
WorkSafe is investigating whether companies like Fletchers
Construction have put contractors at risk.

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee said he wants to see
better co-operation with WorkSafe from the likes of Fletchers, as
well as private sub-contractors, as the regulator continues its
investigations into possible incidences of exposure.  Mr Brownlee
said the Accident Compensation Corporation has made provisions for
any claims arising from exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Passer-by Spots Fibro Gear
-------------------------------------------
Kylie Stevens, writing for St. Marys-Mt. Druitt Star reported that
workers dressed in anti-asbestos gear spent digging at Ropes
Crossing, in Australia.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson,
a Blackett resident, contacted the Star after driving past the
workers near the Forrester Road entrance.  He believed 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."

It was revealed the site, now a housing estate managed by Lend
Lease, was contaminated with toxic waste and asbestos in 2003.

An independent site auditor issued the Ropes Crossing precinct
with a site audit statement declaring the site suitable for
residential land uses before the start of any development, a Lend
Lease spokesman said.

"As a condition of the site audit statement we assess each stage
prior to completing bulk earthworks," he said.

"Health and safety is our No. 1 priority and consistent with
WorkCover requirements all contractors working in the area are
required to wear appropriate clothing as a precaution."

Shalvey environmentalist Brent Robertson has renewed calls in
recent years for records showing the former ADI site had toxic
waste and asbestos cleared before it was developed.

"I'm still not convinced stuff isn't still buried there, including
asbestos," he said.

"I wouldn't risk moving there. Independent auditors have got it
wrong before. They're not gods. The site should have been left
undisturbed as a park."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westerham Woman's Death Linked to Toxic Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sevenoaks Chronicle reported that the death of an 82-year-old
Westerham, England, woman may have been as a result of exposure to
asbestos, an inquest heard.

Doris Plant died on March 13 and coroner Roger Hatch said it was
thought she came into contact with the substance while working in
a bus garage.

Mrs Plant, who was born in Islington in 1931, had worked as a
wages clerk and was the widow of Albert, an engineer.

A post mortem examination found the cause of death to be the
presence of a right empyema of the chest and a lung tumour.  And
further investigation found a malignant mesothelioma, a rare form
of cancer most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.

However, Mr Hatch gave an open verdict on Mrs Plant's death at the
West Kent Coroner's Court in Tunbridge Wells.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at Princetown Hospital Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Knapp, writing for Planet Princeton, reported that a
contractor has started to remove asbestos from the inside of the
hospital buildings on Witherspoon Street in downtown Princeton, in
New Jersey, town officials confirmed.

The asbestos is double bagged and stored in a secure storage area
inside hospital prior to being loaded into special sealed
containers and transported offsite for proper disposal, officials
said. One container has been removed from the site so far.
Officials said the work is expected to take another two months.

Evidence of a discharge was observed when two 6,000-gallon heating
oil tanks located between the hospital and the parking garage were
removed. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection was
notified about the discharge. Soil that absorbed the discharge
will be removed from the site and disposed of at a DEP approved
facility, officials said.

The Yannuzzi Corporation, the company that is doing the asbestos
removal work, is also removing items from inside the buildings
that are being prepared for recycling or disposal, including
carpeting, ceiling tiles, light fixtures, pipe coverings, copper
water piping, electrical wiring, and office partitions. Officials
said the work will take another two weeks to complete.

Eisco Environmental has been removing the underground fuel storage
tanks at the site and the work will probably be finished by the
end of the week. No petroleum contamination had been found in
connection with the removal of the tanks so far, officials said.

The site continues to be monitored on a regular basis by
representatives of Whitman Environmental and town officials.
Representatives from the state Department of Labor continue to
visit the site. Workers are properly certified for the work that
they are performing and have been observed to be following proper
safety protocols, officials said.

Demolition work has not been authorized yet, officials said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Firm Angus Group Fined GBP109,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a Paisley, England-based asbestos removal
company has been fined more than GBP100,000 for exposing workers
to dangerous fibres while demolishing a former school building.

A court heard Angus Group Ltd did not properly manage the removal
of asbestos-containing materials from the former Ermine Infants'
School, Lincoln.

The Health and Safety Executive discovered the safety breaches in
2012.

Angus Group was fined GBP109,000 and ordered to pay GBP42,100 in
costs.

It was found guilty at Lincoln Magistrates' Court of eight
breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 relating to
the incident in March 2012.

Angus Group were sub-contracted to carry out the asbestos removal
work on behalf of the contractors demolishing the school, which
was owned by Lincolnshire County Council.

A survey carried out before work began found the end walls of the
school's main hall were covered in a spray-applied coating of
asbestos, and should therefore be removed by a licensed contractor
under safe, controlled conditions.

'Catalogue of failings'

Investigations by HSE concluded that these recommendations were
ignored by Angus Group.

The asbestos spray coating on the main hall walls was chiselled
off using power tools without any screens, enclosures or air
extraction systems in place.

Asbestos-containing material was bagged and carried to a skip
outside.

Angus Group notified the main contractors that the asbestos
removal work on the main hall was finished, but when the project
agents and main contractors visited the next day, they found the
hall covered in dust and patches of asbestos material still on the
wall.

The court heard that HSE found a catalogue of failings in the way
the work had been planned and carried out.

HSE experts concluded the company's safeguards to control the
asbestos risks were "seriously inadequate", leading to an
unnecessary release and spread of dangerous asbestos fibres and
dust.

The plan and risk assessment for the asbestos removal work in the
building's boiler room were also found to be "confused" and a
decontamination unit was not powered.

Fifteen of the 17 samples taken in and around the hall proved
positive for asbestos.

A subsequent analysis, which included other parts of the building,
found asbestos fibres in 15 of 34 samples, indicating asbestos had
spread throughout the building.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Giles said:
"Angus Group Ltd is an experienced licensed contractor, and was
fully aware of all the hazards and all its responsibilities to
ensure safety at all times.

"It is deplorable a company that does know better failed to
properly manage the dangers of this hidden killer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro "Time Bomb" Warning for Illawarra
--------------------------------------------------------
Bree Fuller, writing for Illawarra Mercury, reported that the
Illawarra, New South Wales, community will be left to shoulder the
"time bomb" of deteriorating asbestos buildings if the federal
government axes the agency charged with asbestos safety and
management, Throsby MP Stephen Jones has warned.

Federal budget papers have earmarked the Asbestos Safety and
Eradication Agency for the axe, despite estimates that some 40,000
Australians could die in a third wave of asbestos-related disease
in decades to come.  The move could jeopardize the health and
safety of thousands of Illawarra residents living in the "asbestos
belt", where suburbs are littered with housing projects built from
the so-called wonder material.

But that was not all, according to Mr Jones, who said communities
would also carry the burden of cleaning up asbestos-contaminated
buildings if the agency is axed.

"There are community organisations right throughout the region,
right throughout the country, who are sitting on a time bomb of
old asbestos buildings," Mr Jones said.

"There are basketball stadiums, scout halls, that are made out of
asbestos and those organisations don't have the resources to
safely remove and upgrade those facilities.

"As they get older they start to deteriorate and who's going to
pay for it? Who's going to clean up this mess?

"We can't have continual buck-passing, if anything the
Commonwealth needs to increase its involvement in this issue, not
decrease it."

It is a cause close to Mr Jones, who has spent much of his career
fighting for victims of asbestos after losing friends and family
members to asbestos-related disease.

Long-time Illawarra coordinator of the Asbestos Diseases
Foundation of Australia, Shirley Shead, has been campaigning for
asbestos awareness since her husband, Don, who helped build the
contaminated Tallawarra Power Station, died of asbestosis in 2000.

Ms Shead said it was alarming to see that after years of
campaigning it was still not getting the attention it deserved
from government.

"I don't think the government ever do enough, whatever they do. I
was often in rallies at Parliament House and sitting in on it but
you don't ever get anywhere," the 84-year-old Primbee woman said.
"It deserves more attention because it's on our doorstep,
everybody would have it somewhere in their homes, it's just sad."

Earlier in May the National Commission of Audit recommended the
agency, set up in 2013, to, be abolished as a cost-saving measure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste Centre Given Go-Ahead for Holbury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yandell, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that
plans to create a new asbestos waste transfer station in a
Hampshire, England, community have been given the go-ahead.

Civic chiefs have approved an application to move an existing
facility in the centre of Holbury to a new site on the outskirts
of the village.

The current transfer station is near homes, shops and the New
Forest Academy -- formerly Hardley School and Sixth-Form.

But the large metal containers full of asbestos dust will now be
transferred from the Solent Environmental Services site in Long
Lane to its new headquarters on Hardley Industrial Estate.

The application was approved unanimously by members of Hampshire
County Council's regulatory committee.

People living in the Long Lane area have spent months campaigning
for the containers to be moved away from their homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Lead to Digging Ban at York Garden
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that gardeners have been told not to dig down
more than 12 inches because of safety fears in part of York, in
England.

Residents of flats in the Newbury Avenue area have been
cultivating a communal garden for years, but now council bosses
have set a 30cm (12ins) limit for digging in the flower beds
because of concern about asbestos from a local tip which closed in
the 1950s. They say any material in the soil is perfectly safe --
as long as people do not disturb it by digging or lifting any
paving stones or turf.

The warning applies to a number of gardens off Kingsway West,
Newbury Avenue and Windsor Garth and near the garage block, off
Newbury Avenue.

Resident Susan Crosby, 49, said: "It is a very strange thing to
get a letter you can't dig any deeper than 12 inches. I have lived
in council property all my life and never had a letter telling me
not to dig anywhere, which is effectively what it means."

Jack Hart, from The Freedom Association, said: "This is yet
another example of local councils being overzealous when it comes
to health and safety. There is no need at all to prevent those who
wish to work in the garden from doing so."

City of York Council has secured GBP57,000 of government funding
to investigate an old tip off Foxwood Lane where household waste
was last dumped in the 1950s. As waste disposal can sometimes
cause land pollution, the grant was used to fund soil, water and
ground gas sampling.

Lucie Hankinson, senior contaminated land officer, said in a
letter to residents: "The soil was found to contain pockets of ash
and occasional fragments of asbestos cement or boarding.

"However, in every location where ash or asbestos was identified,
it was found to be covered by a layer of turf, inert soil or
tarmac.

"People are therefore unlikely to come into contact with it and so
it is not considered to pose a significant risk to health.
However, we would advise that residents avoid removing existing
areas of turf, tarmac or paving, and avoid digging deeper than 30
centimetres (12 inches) below ground level in existing flowerbeds
where possible."

It has ruled out classing the ground as "contaminated" and says no
further action is needed.

Steve Waddington, assistant director for housing and community
safety, said: "In common with most cities, land formerly used for
domestic waste disposal has been built around. As we advised
residents in early April, our rigorous investigation has shown
there is very little risk as any builders' rubble lies under an
inert layer of turf, soil or concrete, and we're advising those
entitled to use this small communal garden to avoid digging deeper
than 30cm."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boise Construction Co. Fined for Fibro Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sowell, writing for Idaho Stateman, reported that Owyhee
Construction Inc. will pay $100,000 and spend three years on
probation after violating a federal environmental law when it
failed to capture broken cement pipe that contained asbestos
during a 2009 upgrade of the city of Orofino's water lines.

The federal government is also seeking $2.5 million in cleanup
restitution, with the final amount to be determined through a
civil enforcement action brought against the company and others
with potential liability, according to federal court records.

Cement pipe that contains asbestos is considered safe. However,
when it is broken, asbestos fibers become airborne and pose a
health hazard to anyone breathing them in. Although the company
knew the water system contained up to 5,000 feet of pipe
containing asbestos, the onsite manager and foreman failed to
properly supervise the $3 million project to ensure the material
was encased and disposed of properly. Instead, the waste materials
were used as fill on 16 private properties around Orofino.

"Deceived into thinking Owyhee Construction had provided them with
'clean fill,' citizens and businesses of Orofino used the material
to fill their, driveways and yards. The result: a contaminated
mixture of crushed pipe and debris laced with harmful asbestos
spread over 16 separate sites," said Tyler Amon,special agent in
charge for the criminal investigation division for the
Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle.

The EPA spent $3.9 million to clean up the material.

District Judge Edward J. Lodge also ordered Owyhee Construction to
implement a compliance and ethics program.

Last year, two Owyhee employees were convicted of violating the
asbestos work standards of the federal Clean Air Act. Bradley
Eberhart, 52, of Garden Valley and Douglas Greiner, 53, each
served six months in prison and six months of home confinement.

Greiner was the project superintendent and Eberhart served as the
onsite supervisor. The government accused both men of failing to
properly supervise the project. Employees who completed the work
were not properly trained in asbestos removal and failed to wear
proper protective gear.

Greiner and Eberhart are also personally liable for a portion of
the cleanup costs, according to the federal Department of Justice.

"Businesses have a firm, and in this case contractual, obligation
to handle harmful materials with care and in compliance with
environmental regulations that protect the public from unknowing
harm," U.S. Attorney for Idaho Wendy Olson said in a statement.
"This case should send the strong message that those who fail to
meet these obligations will be investigated, caught and punished."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare for Carbonear Town Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Jenkins, writing for CBN Compass, reported that between
May 15 and May 20, five employees with the public works department
of the Town of Carbonear, in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Canada,
received letters from their employer in the mail.

In each letter, the workers -- four labourers and a heavy
equipment operator -- were informed there was a chance they had
been exposed to asbestos on a jobsite.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibre formerly used in buildings
and structures because of its highly durable qualities. It is no
longer used because it is a dangerous substance when the fibres
are inhaled, and has been known to cause chronic illnesses, such
as mesothelioma, asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and
pleural thickening.

No knowledge of presence

The workers, who The Compass has decided not to identify due to
the sensitivity of the situation, were responsible for clearing
the sidewalks in front of the former Bond Theatre on Water Street
following a fire April 23.

The building, which had been renovated about a decade ago, had
vinyl siding placed over asbestos siding (transite sheeting),
something the town was unaware of.

"It never occurred to staff that there was a threat of exposure to
asbestos, otherwise, (workers) would not have been sent to the
site, nor would (they) have placed themselves in an unsafe
situation," town administrator Cynthia Davis told The Compass.

It was a few days after the possible exposure when one of the
workers witnessed a clean-up crew in protective attire picking up
debris. When he spoke with them, he learned asbestos was present.

A call was made to Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) and the
town, and soon after a sign was erected notifying the public and
site workers that there was asbestos present.

Low-risk, says OH&S

Service NL spokesperson Vanessa Coleman-Sadd informed The Compass
through email a complaint had been issued on May 7 by an affected
employee. Coleman-Sadd referred to the exposure as "non-friable,
which has minimal risk for exposure."

The asbestos awareness program at the University of Toronto
compares friable asbestos with non-friable.

It describes non-friable as a "product . . . in which the asbestos
fibres are bound or locked into the product matrix, so that the
fibres are not readily released. Such a product would present a
risk for fibre release, only when it is subject to significant
abrasion through activities such as sanding or cutting with
electric power tools."

Siding and other solid asbestos materials fit into that category.

A concern that the fire, the use of high pressure fire hoses on
the building and the use of leaf blowers being considered
significant abrasion was discussed by a worker. He believed the
agitation may have lead to the breaking apart of the product, thus
a danger to those on site without protective gear.

One worker was especially concerned because tools used for the job
included leaf blowers, which could have blown asbestos remnants
into the air, and potentially into their lungs.  It could take
years or decades before effects can be seen from possible
exposure.

An asbestos removal company was brought in to help clear debris.
There are some 100 registered asbestos abatement contractors with
the provincial government.

Next steps

In the letters, workers were advised to see a doctor, just in case
exposure had taken place. At least two had x-rays completed on
their respiratory system by May 23.

If the exposure does cause any health issues, Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation commission outlined for The Compass what
types of treatment an employee could receive.

"Compensation may include wage-loss benefits; health care benefits
to cover the costs of medications, treatments, assistive devices,
personal care and other services as medically necessary; and, a
lump sum permanent functional impairment award for permanent
restrictions resulting from the disease," Carla Riggs,
communications director for the organization, told The Compass in
an email.

This was the first incident the town administrator has been made
aware of since she began her position 16 years ago. Davis has
confirmed more training in hazard recognition will be completed.

"This situation has been an eye-opener for everyone ... but it
provides an opportunity now to complete further training in hazard
recognition and to identify the possibility of such a hazard for
future jobs," explained Davis. "(It will also help) identify
controls for implementation in (the) future so staff are not
exposed to hazardous materials that could post a risk to their
health and safety."


                             *********

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  * * *