CAR_Public/140627.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 127

                             Headlines


AA CATERING: Faces "Vural" Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AERO AUTOMATIC: Sued For Failing to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
AEROFLEX HOLDING: Being Sold to Cobham for Too Little, Suit Claims
AEROPOSTALE WEST: Judge Alsup Gives Scathing Remark on Settlement
ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Reducing Health Care Subsidies

ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: Lawsuit Filed Over Orbital Sciences Deal
ANNIE'S INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: DNAML Looks Forward to Pursuing Claims Aggressively
ARC OF NORTHWEST: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Claims
ARIZONA: Judge Certifies Class on Health Care System Complaints

BANK OF AMERICA: Facing Suit Over "High Frequency" Stock Trading
BIMBO BAKERIES: Fraud Claims Belong in D.C. Superior Court
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Blocked Generic Form of Aggrenox, Suit Says
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Motion to Better Manage Site Filed
CARE HEALTH CENTER: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Anastasi" Suit Claims

CENTERSTATE BANKS: Reaches MoU to Settle Litigation Over Merger
CENTURY GOLF: "Metzger" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CHC COMPANIES: Faces "Dalesandro" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHILD AND FAMILY: 2 Lawyers Owe Monetary Sanctions, Judge Rules
COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Action Over Jail Practices

DOLE PACKAGED: Judge Certifies Class Action "All Natural" Claims
DUN & BRADSTREET: Sued Over Inaccurate Report on Credit Products
EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Suit v. American Gypsum Ongoing
EBIX INC: Georgia Court Approves Class Action Settlement
ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Class Action Over Oct. 2013 Bushfire Ongoing

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Firing Pregnant Woman
FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuses
FORD MOTOR: To Face Suit on MyFord Touch System Woes, Judge Rules
GG DISTRIBUTING: "Bradford" Suit Seeks Payment for Overtime
GLENCORE XSTRATA: Sued for Monopolizing & Stopping Zinc Trade

GOODY SHOP: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Eggs, Milk & Wheat
GRAND SIERRA: Faces Wage & Overtime Class Action
HARLEY MARINE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HARMONIC ARTS: Recalls Products Containing Sprouted Chia Seeds
HCSB FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in Stock Suit on Appeal

HCSB FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit by Subordinated Debt Purchasers
HOME DEPOT: Texas Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Overtime
HONDA: Recalls 2,520 ATVs Due to Steering Problems
IM SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Pop-Up Advertisements
JAGUAR: Recalls XJ Model Car Due to Defect in Restraints Control

JAGUAR: Recalls XF Model CAR Due to Incorrect Brake Line Routing
JP MORGAN CHASE: Sued for Revoking Cardholders' Reward Points
KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Gallant" Action Over Beverage Cartridges
KIA: Recalls 164 Cadenza Cars Due to Wheel Failure
KUO HUA: Recalls Noodles, Wafers, Pastry and Beverages

LES ALIMENTS: Recalls NutriVilla "Oregano Rubbed" Due to E. Coli
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Storage Capacity
LIME ENERGY: Judge Settles Shareholder Class Action for $2.5 Mil.
LINKEDIN CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
MARTIN MARIETTA: Faces Shareholder Action in NY Supreme Court

MARY GIULIANI: Faces "Darrow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MASSAPEQUA DINER: Faces "Tavarez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MED-REV RECOVERIES: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Act
MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING: Does Not Pay Overtime, N.Y. Suit Claims
MINUTE MAID: Sued in N.D. Florida Over Misleading Product Label

MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Dismisses Employees' Fund Complaints
O'REILLY AUTO: Faces Overtime Class Action in Las Vegas
OCEAN POWER: Faces "Chew" Suit Over Victorian Wave Transaction
OCEAN POWER: Faces "Roby" Suit Over Exchange Act Violations
OCEAN POWER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.J.

OSHKOSH CORPORATION: Recalls 6 Tactical Protector Vehicles
PROPHASE LABS: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Misleading Advertising
RARE HOSPITALITY: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Carosone" Suit Claims
READYLINK HEALTHCARE: 9th Circuit Tosses Insurance Class Action
RMP ATHLETIC: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear with Drawstrings

ROADCO TRANSPORTATION: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Delgado" Suit Says
RONAN, MT: Faces Class Action Over Ineligible Police Officers
SANTA FE GOLD: Still Faces Lone Mountain Suit Over Ortiz Project
SANTA FE GOLD: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Tyhee Gold Merger
SCORES HOLDING: Provides Update on Labor Lawsuit Settlement

SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Walkaway Plus System Over Defect
SODEXO INC: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SONY MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Fake Michael Jackson Songs
SPARTAN STORES: Minn. Suit Dismisses Suit Over Nash-Finch Merger
SUNTERRA MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Allergens

TECH REMODEL: Faces "Rios" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Dismisses Racketeering Claims
THIRTYNINE COLLINS: Faces "Lopez" Suit for Failing to Pay OT
TOWER CAFE: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violation
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in California Over Defective Power Lift Gates

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Settles HIV/AIDS Discrimination Class Action
US VENTURE: "Savaglio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VENOCO INC: 2015 Trial Set in Lawsuit Over Marquez Proposal
VISIONS CABARET: Faces "Miler" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT

WINNIPEG OLD: Recalls Meat Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
YAZAKI CORP: Settles Auto-Parts Price-Fixing Class Action
ZIMMER INC: Recalls Versys Beaded Fullcoat Stem
ZIMMER INC: Recalls M/L Taper Reduced Neck Stems


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Fibro Exposure Led to Doctor's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal to Proceed at Former Post Office
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Exposed to Fibro During Lodge Renos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crew Removes Toxic Dust From Mo. Street Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labour Criticizes Fibro Records

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Holdings Calls for Resuscitation of Mines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Carolina to Pass Fibro Transparency Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust from Fire Will Have Minimal Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Kingskerswell Head Teacher Died of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Island Park Soil Tests Show More Toxic Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Overturns Convictions v. CES
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers on Parliament Square Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Fighting Fibro in Aging Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sutton Widow Appeals to Ex-Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UnionsWA Backs Fibro Compensation Review

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxicity Won't Diminish Over Time, Study Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Proposes $275-Mil. to End Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Adopts Recommendation on Defendant Service
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regulators Say County Must Clean Up Dump Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Building Demolition Planned in Hannibal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Fibro Case Adjourned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FACT Act "Clips Wings of Plaintiffs Bar"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edinburgh Brothers Stricken by Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Crews Called to Garage Fire in Northbourne
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Reopening of Tyne Pedestrian Tunnel

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auburn Theater Owners Eye Fibro Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cuyahoga County to Sue Over Ameritrust Purchase
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Council of Trade Unions Calls for Fibro Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dust Led to Death of 74-Year Old
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Deadly Dust from Navy Ships Begins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Decontamination in Hungary to Cost HUF20BB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Set for High School Lunchroom
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Award for Sears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Retains Jurisdiction in Naval Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Jury Takes Aim at Ancient Pipes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresno Jury Awards $10.9MM in Mesothelioma Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Family Demands Fibro-Test Result
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Appropriate Jurisdiction in Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Rules Enforced in Allerdale Borough
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Thomas Police Station Fibro Issue Probed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Navy Plans Training for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State-only Fibro Labelling "Unfair"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Encapsulation Used in New Zealand Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1 Million Mesothelioma Award Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Life of Former Wolverhampton Worker

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Democrats Tone-Deaf on Veterans' Fibro Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Involved in Prixford Garage Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal for Info Over Death of Huntingdon Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Refuses to Create New Bar Date Rule
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Article Rejects 3rd-Party Duty-to-Warn Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blamed for Shropshire Plant Worker's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Failure to Disclosure Deal Results in Mistrial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pushback v. Bankruptcy Trust Abuse May Grow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two National Law Firms Announce Merger
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Lawyers Call Garlock "The Bad Guy"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Death Caused by Exposure to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Caused Lung Cancer Death of Bus Driver
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian City Fibro Policy Up for Comment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Africa Exposure Case Excluded in NYCAL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Warns About Risk of Mesothelioma

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors Award Nearly $500,000 in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Seek to Reopen Garlock Estimation Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duty to Warn Extends to Nephew in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Miner in Penkridge Appeals for Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brisbane Woman Defies Mesothelioma Prognosis

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Town Council Wants Cleanup Rolling Again
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Jailed After Fibro Roof Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Fibro Sufferers Face Compensation Blow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Removal in New Zealand Worried Family
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bnei Brak Fibro Crisis Closes Bldgs., Stores

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Impact of Garlock Ruling on Defense Discussed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Orange OKs Add'l $26K For Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sea Cadets' Future Secured After Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scope of Subpoenas on Bankr. Trusts Limited
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Out of Step on Fibro, Ministry Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texaco, Chevron Named in Suit Over Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Assistant Appeals to Former Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards Summary Judgment to Boston Edison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Fibro Claim v. Union Pacific
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. to Check Fibro in Brake Product Imports

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lawyers Accuse Garlock of Coverup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Senate Panel Changes Product Liability Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Offers Mesothelioma Diagnosis Tips
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Announces Secondary Offering
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Mfg. Confirms Chapter 11 Plan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Given More Room to Counter Class Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Has 700 Cases Pending as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 392 Fibro Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $447-Mil. Reserves for Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Unit Had $331MM Reserves for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 51,000 Fibro Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Suit Against Travelers Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues $124-Mil. For Fibro Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Unit Estimates $24-Mil. Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Seek Review of "Paulus" Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Seeks Reargument of "Suttner" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Ruling is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeals "Vinciquerra" Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in "Peraica" Suit Are Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 17,500 Fibro Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Has 5,700 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Has 2,800 Pending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 312 Pending Fibro-related Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 435 Pending Fibro Exposure Cases


                            *********


AA CATERING: Faces "Vural" Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bahar Vural and Besime Aslan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. AA Catering, Inc. D/B/A Turkish
Cuisine and Ayse Smith, Case No. 1:14-cv-04218 (S.D.N.Y., June 12,
2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
pay, misappropriated gratuities, and statutory penalties.

AA Catering, Inc., is a Turkish Cuisine restaurant located at 631
Ninth Avenue in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com


AERO AUTOMATIC: Sued For Failing to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Cox, Ron Gaddini, Ricky Nies, Richard Jackson, Jr., Doyle
Settlemeyer, and, Johnny Jackson v. Aero Automatic Sprinkler
Company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-02723
(N.D. Cal., June 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per 7 day
work week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aero Automatic Sprinkler Company is listed by the California
Contractors State License Board as a C16 Fire Protection
Contractor, with license number 901529.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Wayne Rose, Esq.
      ROSE LAW, APC
      11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 135,
      Gold River, CA 95670
      Telephone: (916) 273-1260
      E-mail: joe@joeroselaw.com


AEROFLEX HOLDING: Being Sold to Cobham for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service report that directors are selling Aeroflex
too cheaply through an unfair process to Cobham PLC, for $10.50 a
share or $1.5 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court in
Wilmington, Del.


AEROPOSTALE WEST: Judge Alsup Gives Scathing Remark on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
proposed settlement that gives Aeropostale workers little or
nothing in return for waiving their right to sue the retailer is
"so unfair that it cannot be fixed," a federal judge ruled.

Given the multiple problems with the deal, employees who opted
into the litigation "would be better off fending for themselves
and escaping the negotiating authority of plaintiff's counsel,"
according to the scathing 12-page opinion from U.S. District Judge
William Alsup in San Francisco.

Aeropostale, a national retailer of casual apparel and
accessories, faces at least three pending actions involving
alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs in all three cases are represented by Joseph
Becerra -- jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com -- of the Law Office of
Joseph R. Becerra, and Torey J. Favarote, of Gleason & Favartote
LLP, both located in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Fruin approved a $1.5
million settlement of one case, Sankey v. Aeropostale, earlier
this year, but the action is currently stayed pending an appeal
over attorneys' fees.

Around the same time, Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. in Los Angeles
Superior Court approved a $2.1 million settlement in Pakaz, et al,
v. Aeropostale West.  That deal also requires the retailer to
restore the equivalent of $800,000 in vacation and personal day
credits to current employee accounts.

Alsup meanwhile is presiding over a case led by Portia Daniels
over the failure to include nondiscretionary bonus amount in the
pay for non-exempt Aeropostale employees.

He noted that 594 individuals opted into the litigation, but that
attorneys have reported that the current "true up amount" was
$8,645.61.

Alsup said he was taken aback to learn "sixty percent of all
collective-action opt-in members would give a release and covenant
not to sue but would receive absolutely nothing."

To make matters worse, an analysis of what the remaining opt-in
members would receive revealed that "the vast majority (ninety
percent) of the collective-action opt ins would receive nothing or
virtually nothing in this proposed settlement but nonetheless
would provide a release and covenant not to sue."

"No one should have to give a release and covenant not to sue in
exchange for zero (or virtually zero) dollars," Alsup wrote.  "The
collective-action opt ins would be better off simply walking away
from this lawsuit with their rights to sue still intact.

"It is no answer to say they deserve nothing so no harm is done in
extracting the release and covenant.  The opt ins presumably thing
they deserve something - otherwise they would not have opted in.
To protect the absent opt-in members, they will not be required to
give up their claims in exchange for zero dollars."

The record "is also barren of evidentiary or expert support
showing how this proposed settlement could possibly be fair," the
court found.  Alsup bristled as well when counsel offered "the
excuse that they negotiated the 'settlement framework' in a
vacuum, without information about the actual settlement amount."

Alsup said his direct questions about what class counsel would
seek as a damages award from a jury yielded only vague responses.
The lawyers also did even not have specific information about the
overtime hours the employees worked or the nondiscretionary
bonuses paid, according to the ruling.

In addition to overbroad release of claims in the proposed
settlement, Alsup said he was more astounded by an "additional
release" that would also insulate "defendants . . . the released
parties, representative plaintiff, other settlement collective
action members, collective action counsel, defendants' counsel,
[and] the claims administrator" from "any claim . . . based on
distributions or payments made in accordance with the settlement
agreement."

"This takes the cake," Alsup wrote. "Not only would most opt ins
receive nothing at all, or in some cases, virtually nothing at
all, but absent opt ins could not go after their counsel for
malpractice in foisting this deal upon them."

A gag-order written into the deal would furthermore prevent
parties and counsel from seeking, soliciting or otherwise
encourage the class action members to submit objections, exclusion
requests or appeals regarding the agreement, he found.

"If plaintiff's counsel are not permitted to aid their clients, to
whom they owe fiduciary duties, in submitting objections or
exclusion requests, it may be unduly burdensome for individual
collection-action member to navigate the procedures on their own,"
the opinion states.  "It is also disturbing that plaintiff's
counsel could be prohibited from vigorously advocating in the best
interests of their clients, the individual collective-action
members."

Alsup added pointedly: "No justification is provided for the
fairness and reasonableness of this provision."

Most bothersome of all to Alsup was the simultaneously handling by
class counsel of all three labor and employment claims against
Aeropostale.  There is Supreme Court precedent on the issue of
counsel representing multiple classes against the same defendant,
he said.

"This is because defendants have an incentive to settle all claims
at once, if it settles at all, thereby creating opportunities for
counsel to manipulate the allocation of settlement dollars to the
detriment of absent class members," the opinion states.  "Here,
the same plaintiff's counsel settled all three actions within
months.

Responding to their conflict of interest, the attorneys merely
contended that Aeropostale had no objection.

"This response is ridiculous, missing the point entirely, for in a
collusive deal the defense would be the last to criticize the deal
or to criticize counsel for plaintiff," Alsup wrote.

Alsup scrapped the whole deal on May 29.  Though the case was
slated for trial, the judge picked Aug. 18 as a more practical
date.


ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Reducing Health Care Subsidies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Alabama illegally reduced
health care subsidies to 11,000 married schoolteachers who have
dependent children, a class action claims in Montgomery County
Court in Montgomery, Ala.


ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: Lawsuit Filed Over Orbital Sciences Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia over
the Transaction between Alliant Techsystems Inc. and Orbital
Sciences Corporation, according to the company's May 23, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

On May 5, 2014, a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Arlington
County, Virginia by Michael Blank, who claims to be a stockholder
of Orbital, alleging, among other things, that the directors of
Orbital breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Transaction between Orbital and ATK, and alleging that ATK aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. A similar purported
class action was filed on May 9, 2014, by Gregory Ericksen in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Plaintiffs in Virginia
and Delaware seek, among other relief, to enjoin the Transaction
(or, in the Delaware action, to rescind it in the event it is
consummated).


ANNIE'S INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Annie's, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Annie's
securities between August 8, 2013 and June 3, 2014, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Annie's securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 11, 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.

Annie's is a natural and organic food company.  The Company offers
over 135 products in the following three product categories:
meals; snacks; and dressings, condiments and other.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) t
the Company's historical methodology for estimating certain trade
allowances did not include all related trade promotion costs
subsequent to period end; (2) the Company's accounting for
contract manufacturing did not sufficiently evaluate the valuation
and accuracy of all contract manufacturing receivables and
payables; (3) as a result, the Company's financial results were
misstated; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On June 2, 2014, Annie's disclosed in its Annual Report for the
2014 fiscal year that the Company had identified a material
weakness in its internal control over financial reporting.
According to the Company, the material weakness related to an
insufficient complement of finance and accounting resources,
including employee turnover, causing design deficiencies in
certain areas in which the Company's controls could not
effectively detect misstatements that, in the aggregate, could be
material to its consolidated financial statements.  Specifically,
the Company disclosed that: (1) the historical methodology for
estimating certain trade allowances was not designed to include
all related trade promotion costs subsequent to period end; and
(2) the controls over accounting for contract manufacturing were
not designed to precisely evaluate the valuation and accuracy of
all contract manufacturing receivables and payables.  According to
Annie's, the material weakness resulted in audit adjustments
during the fourth quarter ended March 31, 2014 and misstatements
to the net sales, costs of goods sold, inventory, accounts
receivable, prepaid expenses and other current assets, and accrued
liabilities and revisions to the consolidated financial statements
for the first three quarters of fiscal 2014, for the quarterly and
annual statements for the 2013 fiscal year ended March 31, 2013,
and the2012 fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

On this news, shares of Annie's declined $1.07 per share, over 3%,
to close on June 2, 2014, at $31.65 per share.

On June 3, 2014, after the market close, Annie's announced that
its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), was resigning effective the
earlier of August 11, 2014 or the completion of the Company's
filing with the SEC of the Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2014.  According to the Company, the Audit Committee was
in the process of selecting a new independent registered public
accounting firm.

On this news, shares of Annie's declined $2.53 per share, nearly
8%, to close on June 4, 2014, at $30.07 per share.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


APPLE INC: DNAML Looks Forward to Pursuing Claims Aggressively
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service,, reported that
Apple's "reprehensibility" in an e-book price-fixing scheme
justifies assigning it both state and federal liability, a federal
judge said, while also advancing claims that antitrust violations
harmed a nascent business.

"First, the 'reprehensibility' of Apple's participation in the
price fixing conspiracy is proportional to the penalties sought,"
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote wrote.  "Apple's lawyers and its
highest executives orchestrated a price fixing scheme with blatant
disregard for the requirements of the law.  Apple has expressed no
recognition that its conduct was wrongful, 'suggesting a lack of
remorse and supporting further measures to deter future wrongdoing
of a like type.'"

Apple was the lone holdout in several antitrust class actions
against it and publishers Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Penguin,
Hachette and HarperCollins.  While the other publishers settled
those claims for a total of $166 million, Apple went to a bench
trial where it was slapped last year for having played a central
role in the price-fixing conspiracy.

Cote later certified a class of e-book buyers, but the 2nd Circuit
delayed sending notices to members of the class pending an appeal
by Apple to postpone the trial and decertify the class.  That
April ruling did not deter Cote from increasing Apple's potential
liability for its antitrust behavior in two scathing opinions.

In the first, Cote rejects Apple's argument that piling claims
from 33 states and U.S. territories onto the Clayton Act exposure
would amount to "impermissible double recovery."

Calling this practice "not only proper but commonplace," Cote
wrote:  "It is fundamental to our republic that both the states
and the federal government are empowered to punish those who
violate their laws, even when both violations arise out of the
same conduct.

Despite having alleged $155 million in damages to their citizens,
the states seek to recover less than $9 million in civil
penalties, the judge added.

"Finally, the civil penalties sought by the states are entirely
reasonable in light of those for which any comparable antitrust
violator would be liable," Cote wrote.  "Any party that violates
the relevant state statutes at issue would be subject to the same
range of penalties that Apple is subject to here."

The second ruling deals with claims by Australian startup retailer
DNAML that the antitrust behavior by Apple and the other
publishers harmed its business.

Cote warned that it would be "challenging in the extreme" for
DNAML to prove its case.

"Lost profits are quite speculative, as DNAML had only just
entered the market and it will be difficult to determine what
market share, if any, DNAML would have won from the 'large
international conglomerates' that DNAML alleges occupy the retail
market," the 22-page opinion states.

But she added: "It is more than plausible that a discount retailer
was harmed by a conspiracy to remove retailers' ability to
discount ebooks."

DNAML's attorney, Michael Guzman with Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, said
it looks "forward to pursuing our claims aggressively."

"With regard to causation and damages, we note that the court
fully endorsed our theory: 'It is more than plausible that a
discount retailer was harmed by a conspiracy to remove retailers'
ability to discount e-books,'" Guzman said in an email.  "All
things considered, we believe the case is off to a strong start."

Cote had noted that, while consumers were "the immediate victims
of the defendants' price-fixing conspiracy," retailers faced
directly effects as well.

"Their injuries were not 'too remote' from the defendants'
unlawful conduct," Cote wrote.

Lawyers for Apple did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.


ARC OF NORTHWEST: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Millie Bradley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Arc of Northwest Indiana, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00204 (N.D. Ind., June 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Arc of Northwest Indiana, Inc., provides support and services
to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and
their families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam John Sedia, Esq.
      RUBINO RUMAN CROSMER & POLEN
      275 Joliet Street, Suite 330,
      Dyer, IN 46311
      Telephone: (219) 322-8222
      Facsimile: (219) 322-6675
      E-mail: asedia@rubinoruman.com


ARIZONA: Judge Certifies Class on Health Care System Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class may advance claims that Arizona's prison health care system
is dangerously understaffed and negligently managed, the 9th
Circuit ruled.

Led by Victor Parsons in a 2012 complaint, the inmates say that
medical, dental and mental health care provided by the Arizona
Department of Corrections (ADC) exposed them to substantial risk
and harm, including "preventable injury, amputation,
disfigurement, and death," violating the Eighth Amendment.

Emergency treatment and other medical care in ADC prisons is often
delayed or denied, and it was difficult to secure medications and
medical devices, according to the complaint.  Inmates say dental
care is also substandard and focused largely on extracting the
offending tooth.  As for basic mental health care, the inmates say
some prisoners are kept in isolation units with constant
illumination and given inadequate exercise and nutrition.

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in Phoenix refused to dismiss the
case and then certified a class and a subclass of inmates.  In its
appeal, Arizona argued that the inmates had failed to demonstrate
the "commonality and typicality" required for class certification.

A three-judge panel sided with the inmates, crediting their "four
thorough and unrebutted expert reports, the detailed allegations
in the 74-page complaint, hundreds of internal ADC documents, and
declarations by the named plaintiffs."

This evidence is more than enough at this stage in the case to
show "the existence of the statewide ADC policies and practices
that allegedly expose all members of the putative class to a
substantial risk of serious harm," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote
for the court.

"Those policies and practices, moreover, are defined with
sufficient precision and specificity," he added.  "They involve
particular and readily identifiable conduct on the part of the
defendants, such as failing to hire enough medical staff, failing
to fill prescriptions, denying inmates access to medical
specialists, adopting a de facto 'extraction only' policy for
dental issues, and depriving suicidal and mentally ill inmates
access to basic mental health care."

Arizona houses about 33,000 inmates in 10 prisons, and has for two
years hired private companies to provide health care inside.

In 2012, then-contractor Wexford Health Services reported that,
"for higher-level providers, such as physicians, psychiatrists,
dentists, nurse practitioners, and management-level health care
staff, the overall vacancy rate across ADC facilities exceeded 50
percent," according to the ruling.

Wexford also "described 'long-standing issues, embedded into ADC
health care policy and philosophy' and noted that ADC's health
care system was 'extremely poor,' 'dysfunctional,' 'sub-standard,'
and rife with 'deficiencies.'"

Corizon Inc. replaced Wexford in March 2013, the San Francisco
court noted.

The ruling rejects Arizona's claim that the inmates had failed to
meet the strict commonality requirement for class certification
handed down by the Supreme Court in the 2011 decision Wal-Mart v.
Dukes.

"What all members of the putative class and subclass have in
common is their alleged exposure, as a result of specified
statewide ADC policies and practices that govern the overall
conditions of health care services and confinement, to a
substantial risk of serious future harm to which the defendants
are allegedly deliberately indifferent," Reinhardt wrote.  "As the
District Court recognized, although a presently existing risk may
ultimately result in different future harm for different inmates-
ranging from no harm at all to death - every inmate suffers
exactly the same constitutional injury when he is exposed to a
single statewide ADC policy or practice that creates a substantial
risk of serious harm."

The ADC did not immediately return a request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU National Prison Project
and the ACLU Foundation of Arizona.


BANK OF AMERICA: Facing Suit Over "High Frequency" Stock Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------
James J. Flynn and Dominic A. Morelli, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation,
Barclays Plc, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche
Bank AG, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co. LLC,
UBS AG, The Charles Schwab Corporation, E*Trade Financial
Corporation, FMR, LLC, Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, Scottrade
Financial Services, Inc., TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation,
Citadel LLC, DRW Holdings, LLC, GTS Securities, LLC, Hudson River
Trading, LLC, Jump Trading, LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc., Quantlab
Financial LLC, Tower Research Capital LLC, Tradebot Systems, Inc.,
Tradeworx Inc., Virtu Financial Inc., Chopper Trading, LLC, and
Bids Trading, L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-04321 (S.D.N.Y., June 13,
2014), is a class action brought on behalf of public investors who
purchased and sold shares of stock in the United States between
April 18, 2009 and the present and who suffered trading losses
caused in part by the illegal and manipulative high frequency and
high volume trading methods of a sophisticated class of
technology-driven entities known commonly as "high frequency
traders".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
      LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
      61 Broadway, Suite 501,
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 608-1900
      Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
      Email: victornj@ix.netcom.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Fraud Claims Belong in D.C. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that fraud claims by the National
Consumers League concerning the wheat content in Bimbo Bakeries
products belong in D.C. Superior Court, a federal judge ruled in
Washington.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Blocked Generic Form of Aggrenox, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pipefitters Union Local No 537 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharma GMBH & CO KG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH,
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00857 (D. Conn., June 12, 2014), arises from the
alleged anticompetitive conduct that prevented a less expensive
generic form of Aggrenox from entering the market.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, is a German
Pharmatuetical Company, with its principal place of business at
Binger Strasse 173, 55216 Ingelheim, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William H. Narwold, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      One Corporate Ctr., 17th Fl., 20 Church St.
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 882-1676
      Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
      E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Motion to Better Manage Site Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Missouri Attorney General asked a state court for more oversight
over a landfill where benzene was detected.

The Bridgeton landfill, a subsidiary of Republic Services, has
drawn the ire of neighboring businesses and residents since an
underground fire was detected there more than three years ago.
The fire brought noxious odors to neighboring homes and
businesses, with concerns about the fire's proximity to
radioactive waste at the adjacent West Lake Landfill, also owned
by Republic Services.

Bridgeton is a suburb of St. Louis.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is overseeing the
cleanup of the radioactive waste in the nearby Westlake landfill,
has stated that the landfill does not pose a health risk.

But a Missouri Department of Natural Resources on-site inspector
detected elevated levels of benzene at the landfill's perimeter,
substantially in excess of site-specific standards established by
the Missouri Department of Health.

"The release of benzene by Republic into the environment at the
Bridgeton Landfill is unacceptable," Attorney General Chris Koster
said in a statement.  "Despite the order Republic agreed to more
than a year ago, the company still does not appear to have the
situation under control.  My office is asking the court to compel
Republic to take additional steps to prevent any such future
release of hazardous material into the air."

Koster's office filed a motion in St. Louis County Court,
demanding better management of the site by Republic and more
reimbursement to Missouri for monitoring the site.  Specifically,
Koster's office asked for:

     -- Installation of additional control systems to prevent
hazardous substances, such as benzene, from entering the air
around the site;

     -- Additional comprehensive air sampling for hazardous
substances, including benzene and other volatile organic
compounds;

     -- Additional odor-control measures; and

     -- Enhanced monitoring of the slope and stability of the
landfill itself.

The motion also seeks an additional $315,000 for site monitoring
expenses.  Republic had agreed to reimburse the state for costs
associated with oversight of the landfill, up to $900,000, but the
state claims monitoring costs so far have exceeded $1.2 million.

A hearing on the motion was scheduled for June 19.

Koster filed a class action against the Bridgeton landfill in 2013
to compensate neighboring residents for the noxious fumes.  A $6.8
million settlement for the class action was announced in April; a
final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 1.

Koster also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to produce raw data for
radiological testing along haul routes, pertaining to the adjacent
Westlake landfill.  Koster demands raw sampling data and results
from previous radiological testing along the roads leading to the
Westlake landfill to make sure potential threats do not extend
beyond the site's boundaries.

Koster seeks the raw data the EPA claims to have obtained before
2005, but both the EPA and the Army Corps say they are having
trouble finding the data.  Koster's request is a formal demand
that the data be found immediately and produced.

Bridgeton, pop. 11,630, neighbors Lambert International Airport in
northwest St. Louis County.


CARE HEALTH CENTER: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Anastasi" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ligia Regina Anastasi and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Care Health Center II Inc., Naresh H. Pathak,
Case No. 0:14-cv-61375 (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Care Health Center II Inc., is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Broward County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605,
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


CENTERSTATE BANKS: Reaches MoU to Settle Litigation Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centerstate Banks, Inc. reached a memorandum of understanding to
settle a lawsuit filed over its merger with Southern Bancorp,
Inc., according to Centerstate's May 20, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

CenterState Banks, Inc. ("CenterState") and First Southern
Bancorp, Inc. ("First Southern") have received all required
regulatory approvals necessary to consummate their planned merger,
including the approval of the Federal Reserve System and the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Completion of the
merger remains subject to the remaining customary closing
conditions set forth in the merger agreement, including the
approval of the shareholders of each company at the respective
special meetings of CenterState and First Southern shareholders to
be held on May 28, 2014.  The merger was expected to become
effective on June 1, 2014.

               Memorandum of Understanding

On April 24, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida against First Southern, its directors and
CenterState challenging the merger of First Southern with
CenterState. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
First Southern directors breached their fiduciary duties to First
Southern and its shareholders by agreeing to the proposed merger.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties,
injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger,
rescission, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs and other
further relief.

On May 20, 2014, First Southern and CenterState entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the Plaintiffs (the "Memorandum
of Understanding") regarding the settlement of the litigation.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, First Southern and
CenterState have agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
to the definitive joint proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") of
CenterState and First Southern filed by CenterState with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
April 21, 2014, and first mailed to CenterState's and First
Southern's stockholders on or about April 21, 2014.

CenterState and First Southern and the other defendants named in
the Florida complaint deny each of the allegations therein and
believe that the Proxy Statement is accurate and complete in all
material respects and that no further disclosure or other action
is required under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk that
the lawsuit may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense and burden
of defending such action, CenterState and First Southern have
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding
with the Plaintiffs, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed merger, all of which are set forth.

The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things,
approval of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida. Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
following final Court approval, the litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice. There can be no assurances, however, that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that Court approval of the settlement will be obtained. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum
of Understanding may be terminated.


CENTURY GOLF: "Metzger" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Metzger, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Century Golf Partners Management, LP d/b/a
Arnold Palmer Golf Management, CGPM/WMC Operating, LLC, James
Hinckley, and Lisa Taylor, Case No.  2:14-cv-03747 (E.D.N.Y., June
13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and pay as well as
injunctive relief and declaratory relief pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Century Golf Partners Management, LP d/b/a Arnold Palmer Golf
Management, hosts weddings, golf outings, sweet 16 parties and
other special events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Lynne Witenko, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      Facsimile: (585) 272-0574
      E-mail: jwitenko@theemploymentattorneys.com


CHC COMPANIES: Faces "Dalesandro" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara L. Dalesandro on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, 11415 Taylor Road Alliance, Ohio 44601 v.
CHC Companies, Inc., d.b.a. Correctional Healthcare Companies
c/o Statutory Agent: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service, 50 W.
Broad St., Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Case No. 5:14-cv-
01275 (N.D. Ohio, June 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

CHC Companies, Inc., d.b.a. Correctional Healthcare Companies,
provides health care services at correctional facilities and
employs workers in Portage County, Ohio and at various other
locations in Ohio and at locations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Tucker, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN A. TUCKER
      Ste. 301, 1 South Main Street
      Akron, OH 44308
      Telephone: (330) 253-7100
      Facsimile: (330) 253-2500
      E-mail: jatucker@jatuckerlaw.com


CHILD AND FAMILY: 2 Lawyers Owe Monetary Sanctions, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that two
lawyers owe monetary sanctions after failing to timely produce a
number of documents for discovery in a wrongful-termination class
action, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington, D.C., said
that attorneys David Rose and Donald Temple "missed or ignored
discovery deadlines, [had] not provided appropriate documentation
or answers to discovery requests, and generally failed to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Rose and Temple represent Ronda Davis and other former employees
of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency who
allege they were fired "as part of a discriminatory reduction in
force -- namely, that the agency's imposition of a bachelor's
degree requirement for the position of 'Family Social Worker' was
a pretextual reason for terminating the putative class members
based on their race and/or age," the ruling states.

The first complaint was filed in September 2010, and the first
phase of discovery began in early 2013, but "more than a year
later, and more than three years since this action began,
significant deficiencies remain regarding a number of critical
discovery topics," Contreras wrote.

She said Rose and Temple failed to produce signed verifications of
answers to interrogatories to the court, and failed to produce
"right to sue" letters by the discovery deadline.

Indeed the failure by the lawyers to inform one class member of
the date and time of her deposition cost the district $175 for the
expense of a court reporter.  The lawyers also submitted a revised
report from an expert, but failed to "request leave from the court
to file the report or to reopen expert discovery, and they made no
attempt to explain whether good cause existed for the court to
permit them to file a late report," the ruling states.

Dismissal of the complaint would not be an appropriate sanction
because the counsel's lack of action during discovery has not yet
prejudiced defendants, has not burdened the court's docket, and
had not been disrespectful to the court, Contreras found.

"Although the court is frustrated by the time and energy it has
spent babysitting discovery in the case -- and has informed
plaintiffs' counsel several times to that effect -- it remains
capable of managing the delays in the future without prejudicing
its own docket," Contreras wrote.

Monetary sanctions are appropriate, however, and should fall on
plaintiffs' counsel, who has represented the putative class since
the beginning of the discovery process.

"Plaintiffs' inability to comply with discovery in a timely and
effective manner has slowed the progress of this action to a
snail's pace and hindered the district's ability to develop fully
its defense, such as preparing an expert report and determining
which plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies,"
Contreras wrote.  "And perhaps even more troubling, plaintiffs'
counsel have given this court no reassurances that they are
capable of resolving these discovery issues moving forward,
despite repeated -- and increasingly pointed -- attempts by the
court to nudge them in the right direction."

The district's Child and Family Services Agency presented evidence
of 15.1 billable hours at $295 per hour it spent related to the
discovery violations, plus the $175 expense for the court
reporter, and should be paid $4,629 in return.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Action Over Jail Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Malewski was forced to stay in the holding areas of
Cook County Jail from May 12-16, 2014.  For most of that time he
was not fed, and had no access to a toilet or a shower.  He was
not assigned a cell.  He did not have a bed to sleep in.  Marcus
was not alone.  He was part of a group of over 50 pre-trial
detainees who were herded from holding pen to holding pen, day
after day, and only allowed to sleep on the floor for a couple of
hours each night in an area of the jail under construction.

To cover up this barbaric treatment guards entered their id cards
into the jail computer, assigning them to mythical, non-existent
cells.

On June 11, 2014, Gregory E. Kulis & Associates, Ltd. & the Uptown
Peoples Law Center filed a class action law suit in the United
States District Court in Chicago asking for damages for the men
subjected to this barbaric treatment.

The complaint alleges that Board President Toni Preckwinkle and
Cook County has a practice of underfunding Cook County Jail to
such an extent that there are not enough beds for all the
pre-trial detainees entering the jail.  The complaint alleges that
this practice of underfunding and overcrowding has gone on for
decades, without the County either reducing the jail population,
or increasing its capacity.  The complaint also alleges that
Sherriff Thomas Dart and the Jails Chief Executive, Cara Smith,
have established practices and policies which allowed these men to
be deprived of the basic necessities of life.  The case asks for
class certification so that all of the men subjected to these
conditions can obtain compensation for their injuries.

Greg Kulis, one of the attorneys representing Marcus, stated:

"Marcus was even denied access to a toilet.  As a result, he was
forced to urinate on himself, and then left to sit in his urine
soaked clothing for more than a day before he was finally allowed
to take a shower.  This sort of treatment should never be allowed
in a civilized society."

Alan Mills, another of Marcus's attorneys, stated:

"The County and the Sheriff have been aware of these conditions
for decades.  While the jail has long been overcrowded, what was
done to these men -- none of whom had been convicted of any crime
-- is unprecedented, but not surprising.  The real problem is that
we lock up far too many people.  There are thousands of people
suffering from mental illness, thousands of low level non-violent
drug offenders are sent to Cook County Jail every year.  We need
to break our addiction to incarceration, or these horrors will
continue to happen."


DOLE PACKAGED: Judge Certifies Class Action "All Natural" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
proposed class action against Dole, for touting frozen berries and
fruit cups as "all natural," may proceed in part and cover
California buyers, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Chad Brazil sued Dole Packaged Foods in San Jose
Federal Court in 2012.  Brazil claimed 38 Dole products labeled as
"all natural fruit" contained "synthetic ingredients," including
ascorbic and citric acid.

Food and Drug Administration regulations require companies to
refrain from the "all natural" tag, Brazil said, if a product
contains "unnatural ingredients such as added color, [or]
synthetic and artificial substances."  Dole mislabeled its
products, Brazil claimed, because they contained ingredients that
precluded use of the term "natural."

Brazil specifically cited a 12-ounce bag of Dole mixed fruit,
which used "the phrase 'all natural fruit' even though this
product contains the following artificial ingredients: ascorbic
acid, citric acid, malic acid and added flavors."  Brazil claimed
he had spent more than $25 on Dole products.

Dole filed motions to dismiss original and amended complaints.

Dole Food Co. was removed from the lawsuit as a result.  Dole's
frozen blueberries and smoothie shaker products -- which Brazil
testified that he never purchased -- were also dismissed.

The narrowed lawsuit cites 10 products: "(1) Tropical Fruit (can),
(2) Mixed Fruit (cup), (3) Diced Peaches, (4) Diced Apples, (5)
Diced Pears, (6) Mandarin Oranges, (7) Pineapple Tidbits, (8) Red
Grapefruit Sunrise, (9) Tropical Fruit (cup), (10) Mixed Fruit
(bag)."

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Brazil's request for class
certification, in part.  Koh allowed for a plaintiff class of
Californians who purchased Dole fruit products bearing the "all
natural fruit" label, from April 11, 2008.

Koh denied Brazil's request for a nationwide class.

"Dole does not dispute that a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy," the 36-page ruling states.  "Here, the value of each
individual claim is likely small, such that the only practical way
for this case to proceed is as a class action.  Moreover, neither
party has raised any issues related to efficiency, and the court
finds that this dispute is more efficiently resolved as a class
action."

Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates, governmental entities,
and the court involved are excluded from the class, Koh said.

"Each nonresident class member's claims should be governed by and
decided under the consumer protection laws of the states in which
the various class members reside and in which the transactions
took place," the ruling states.

Koh found that Brazil submitted a valid regression model to show
damages on a classwide basis, through common proof.

Dole opposed the model, which compares data on identical Dole
products before and after the "all natural" label was introduced.

"(A)ccording to Dole, the model will be unable to account for
price differences based on the nature and location of the outlet
in which they are sold, or the availability of discounts.  Because
of these variations, Dole contends, different consumers allegedly
suffered different amounts of damages," the ruling states.
"However, Dole does not explain how these regional price
differences would impact the actual measure of damages in the
regression model: price changes within regions that correspond to
the introduction and/or removal of the allegedly misleading label
statements."

Koh sided with Brazil.

"(B)ecause Brazil has advanced a damages methodology that is
capable of 'tracing the damages to the plaintiff's theory of
liability,' Brazil has successfully shown that questions common to
the class predominate," the ruling states.

Koh ordered an amended complaint to be filed by June 13.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Sued Over Inaccurate Report on Credit Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Sciences Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation;
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Case No.
7:14-cv-00128 (E.D.N.C., June 13, 2014), seeks to remedy the
efforts by the Defendants, a marketing and sales company cloaked
as "Dun & Bradstreet," to wrongfully exploit information, often
false and inaccurate, on Dun & Bradstreet's report to sell
expensive internet-based credit-on-self products, collectively
known as CreditBuilder.

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation is a Delaware limited
liability company located at 22761 Pacific Coast Highway in
Malibu, California 90265.  It marketed, solicited, and sold
CreditBuilder products in the stream of interstate commerce
throughout the state of North Carolina and this judicial district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
      ESSEX RICHARDS, PA
      1701 South Boulevard,
      Charlotte, NC 28203-4727
      Telephone: (704) 377-4300
      Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
      E-mail: NAdams@essexrichards.com


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Suit v. American Gypsum Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated domestic wallboard
antitrust litigation against American Gypsum Company LLC in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to Eagle Materials
Inc.'s May 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum
Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum
conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for
drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law.
The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to increase prices through the announcement and
implementation of coordinated price increases, output
restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to
American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include
CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North
America, Georgia-Pacific LLC, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO
Building Products LLC. The plaintiffs in these class action
lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or
indirect purchasers of wallboard during various periods from 2008
to present for unspecified monetary damage (including treble
damages) and in some cases injunctive relief in various United
States district courts, including the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina, North Carolina
and the Northern District of Illinois. On April 8, 2013, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and
consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. On July
29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints,
denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price
of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to plaintiffs'
claims.

While American Gypsum's production of written discovery is
substantially complete, discovery is ongoing.


EBIX INC: Georgia Court Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc., an international supplier of On-Demand software and
E-commerce services to the insurance, finance and healthcare
industries, on June 12 disclosed that, following the June 5, 2014,
final fairness hearing, on June 11, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered a
Final Order and Judgment Approving the Class Action Settlement and
Plan of Allocation and Certifying the Settlement Class in the
shareholder securities class action styled In re Ebix, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:11-CV-02400-RWS (N.D.
Ga.), which was filed in 2011 on behalf of a class consisting of
those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between May 6, 2009, and June 30, 2011.  The Court's
final approval, which includes a dismissal of the action with
prejudice, follows the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement announced by the Company on February 6, 2014.

Ebix Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Robin Raina, commented,
"We are pleased to have put this litigation behind us and look
forward to moving ahead with our long-term business development
strategy."


ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Class Action Over Oct. 2013 Bushfire Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bibby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the electricity company accused of responsibility for a
devastating bushfire in the lower Blue Mountains last year says it
still does not know what actually sparked the blaze.  The fire
which ripped through Springwood and Winmalee on October 17
completely destroyed 193 houses and partially damaged
approximately 200 more.

Hundreds of residents have launched a $200 million class action
against Endeavour Energy, alleging that poor tree maintenance by
the company was to blame.  They say a tree on Linksview Road,
Springwood caught alight because Endeavour had allowed it to grow
through the lines, despite being warned by residents that this was
happening.

The fire is said to have started in the tree and then jumped
across the road into bushland from where it spread to scores of
other houses.  On June 13 -- nine months after the fire -- lawyers
for Endeavour told the NSW Supreme Court they had been unable to
determine the cause of the blaze.  Barrister Michael Izzo said
this was because police had seized the relevant section of
powerline and prevented access to the site in order to conduct
their investigation, ahead of an upcoming coronial inquiry into
the blaze.

"Endeavour Energy doesn't have a view as to the cause of the bush
fire," Mr. Izzo said.

"The undertaking of a detailed and considered inquiry into the
cause of the fire has not been made."

The court heard that 300 residents have now registered to be part
of the action, with another 100 likely to be involved.

In response to a question from the residing judge, Justice Peter
Garling, Mr. Izzo confirmed that Endeavour Energy would not be
apportioning any blame to the response to the fire by emergency
services.

Justice Garling indicated that he intended to set a hearing date
for the class action between July and December 2015.  He ordered
that lawyers for the plaintiffs file an amended statement of
claim, and that the matter return to court next month.

Speaking after the hearing an Endeavour Energy spokeswoman said
the company had asked lawyers representing residents to clarify
their claims so that it could respond in detail.

"Our thoughts continue to be with the Blue Mountains community and
our focus continues to be on maintaining a safe and reliable
electricity network," the spokeswoman said.


FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Firing Pregnant Woman
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a woman says LA Fitness fired
her after she became pregnant and required time off to deal with
morning sickness.


FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuses
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Popp, writing for News and Tribune, reports that four
plaintiffs are suing a Floyd County commissioner, the sheriff and
various officers on claims they were "stripped, held naked,
tortured, humiliated and abused" by jail staff.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday, June 12, in U.S. District Court in
New Albany by the law firm Clay Daniel Walton & Adams PLC and
announced by attorney Laura Landenwich via email to media.

The plaintiffs: Tabitha Gentry, 32, New Albany; Vincent Minton,
23, Nabb; Michael Herron, 36, Henryville; and Adam Walker, 31,
Georgetown, seek actual and punitive damages.  They also have
filed on behalf of other inmates who may have received treatment
similar to their treatment.

The lawsuit notes there are "potentially hundreds of members of
this class."  Named in the lawsuit are: Sheriff Darrell Mills,
Floyd County Commissioners President Mark Seabrook and several
officers with the Floyd County Sheriff's Department.

Attempts to reach Mills for comment were not successful. Seabrook
said he could not comment at this time.

In the complaint, Ms. Landenwich claims that since June 2012, all
the plaintiffs listed in the complaint "were forcibly stripped of
their clothing, and kept in a state of undress for prolonged
periods of time, whether as a punitive measure, or as a torture
method, or under the pretext of a search and seizure, or any other
reason."

The complaint continues that while the plaintiffs were held in
this state they were subjected to, "pepper spray, Taser or other
unnecessary and unwarranted means of excessive force . . ."

Ms. Landenwich claims the treatment took place by jail staff
without "reasonable, individualized suspicion or probable cause
required by law."

The plaintiffs allege that their unclothed bodies were exposed to
jail staff of the opposite sex and that their exposed bodies were
subject to "harmful and extremely offensive touching."  The
complaint states that the plaintiffs were regularly deprived
access to restroom facilities, and they were forced to relieve
themselves in a drain in the floor.

In the complaint, Ms. Landenwich claims Mills failed to employ
qualified persons for the authoritative positions.  Ms. Landenwich
asserts that the defendant's conduct was "intentional or grossly
negligent, or indicated active malice toward plaintiffs . . ."

According to the complaint, each of the plaintiffs claim similar
experiences in jail.  The allegations that preceded their arrivals
to the jail included public intoxication, disorderly conduct,
resisting law enforcement, intimidation and operating a vehicle
while intoxicated.

Mr. Walker's claims of mistreatment at the jail, are similar to
his co-plaintiffs, and provide the most extensive details of his
incarceration in May.  The Army veteran and small business owner
claims, through the complaint, that an argument ensued after a
correctional officer winked at him while he sat without handcuffs
on a bench in the jail.  Mr. Walker was thrown to the ground by
three officers, according to the complaint, and he was then
handcuffed.

"While handcuffed, officers Tased Walker seven times and choked
him until he lost consciousness," the complaint reads. "Walker
regained consciousness while being dragged into the 'padded
cell.'"

Like the other plaintiffs, Mr. Walker claims his clothing was
forcibly removed by the jail staff.

"Defendants left Walker alone in the cell with nothing to cover
himself," according to the complaint, and after a period of time
and complaints that he was cold, a smock was provided.  When he
asked to use a restroom, "He was told that the drain in the floor
was the bathroom," according to the complaint.

Ms. Landenwich claims Mr. Walker was in the cell for approximately
18 hours before he was given a jumpsuit and a mat to lie on.  Mr.
Walker claims while in the jail he saw another inmate forcibly
stripped by officers and put into another padded cell.

" . . . Walker witnessed the officers pulled the detainee's feet
out from under him so that the detainee fell to the floor
headfirst and knock out his teeth," according to the complaint.

In the complaint, Mr. Walker is described as suffering from a
variety of combat injuries, including a gunshot wound, spinal-
compression fracture, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress.  While being held in the jail's booking area for four
days, "jail staff refused to provide him with medications,
including anti-seizure medication and antibiotics.

"When Walker advised officers that he needed seizure medication,
an officer told him, 'Well, you'd better not have a seizure,'"
according to the complaint.

Ms. Landenwich is claiming each of her clients had their
constitutional rights violated during their incarcerations at the
jail.

"[The treatment] is intolerable in a civilized society, and
presents a marked departure from the standard to which the Western
world adheres for the treatment of prisoners of war during
wartime, let alone the standard of acceptable treatment for
American citizens on American soil," Ms. Landenwich states in the
complaint.


FORD MOTOR: To Face Suit on MyFord Touch System Woes, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian writing for Courthouse News Service reports that
Ford must face consumer claims that it concealed known problems
with its high-tech MyFord Touch system that could endanger driver
safety, a federal judge ruled.

Installed in Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models since 2011, the
MyFord Touch "infotainment" system costs $1,795.  Incorporating
GPS navigation, Sirius satellite radio and Bluetooth
communication, the system also controls the heat and air, and may
be used to contact emergency services.

A federal class action over the system pending in San Francisco
involves car owners from 15 different states alleging Ford knew
the system was defective when it sold them their vehicles.  They
said the software, made by Microsoft, often freezes, endangering
drivers' safety by leaving them unable to defrost windows, operate
the rearview camera, or dial 911.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco upheld the
plaintiffs' fraud claims, finding that Ford failed to disclose
known problems with the MyTouch system when plaintiffs bought
their cars.

"It is more than fair to say that, by 2013, Ford was aware of
significant problems with the MFT [MyFord Touch] system.  Of
course, most plaintiffs purchased or leased their vehicles before
2013 (four in 2010, six in 2011, and eleven in 2012).  Prior to
2012, Ford had issued only two TSBs [Technical Service Bulletin]
and no updates," Chen wrote.  "Nevertheless, it is still
reasonable to infer that, if Ford had issued four TSBs and two
updates in 2012 alone, Ford should have known of problems with MFT
by around 2011, i.e., before it could recommend what repairs or
updates needed to be done."

Ford also failed to show that a car with an inoperable MyFord
system is no less safe than a car that never had a system in the
first place, the court found.

"It is one thing for a product never to have a feature; it is
another for a consumer to have purchased the product with that
feature and to depend on that feature, only to have it suddenly
malfunction," Chen wrote.

He said the potential for driver distraction makes this especially
problematic, but he dismissed most of plaintiffs' breach of
express and implied warranty claims.

Eleven plaintiffs failed to timely notify Ford of the breach of
warranty, barring them from recovering for the breach in court,
and all failed to use the informal dispute settlement procedure
set forth in the limited warranty before filing suit.


GG DISTRIBUTING: "Bradford" Suit Seeks Payment for Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Bradford and Vincent Lee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GG Distributing, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-00692 (E.D. Tex., June 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay Plaintiffs and all those similarly
situated employees overtime wages.

GG Distributing, LLC is a Texas limited liability with its
principal place of business at 105 Rothrock Drive Longview, Texas
75602 as well as locations in Palestine, Texas, Nacogdoches, Texas
and Beaumont, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200,
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


GLENCORE XSTRATA: Sued for Monopolizing & Stopping Zinc Trade
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc., Iowa Steel and Wire Co. and
Southwestern Wire, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Glencore Xstrata, PLC, Glencore Ltd.,
Pacorini Metals AG, Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Trafigura BV,
Trafigura AG, Nems (USA) Inc., Impala UK Ltd., Impala USA Inc.,
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs International; GS
Power Holdings LLC, Metro International Trade Services
LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Company, J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy
Corporation, Henry Bath & Son, Ltd., Henry Bath LLC, London
Metal Exchange Limited, LME Holdings Limited, Hong Kong
Exchanges & Clearing, LTD., and John Does 1-20, is brought against
the Defendant for the alleged conspiracy to monopolize and
restrain trade in zinc stored in London Metal Exchange warehouses
directly caused anticompetitive price effects in the markets for
the sale of zinc globally and in the United States in violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

London Metal Exchange Ltd. conducted more than 80% of global non-
ferrous business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, New York 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      Email: hannah@blbglaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
      Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610)667-7056
      Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             kjustice@ktmc.com
             tziegler@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
      Jack Mattingly Jr., Esq.
      MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
      13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73143
      Telephone: (405) 603-2222
      Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
      Email: jason@mroklaw.com
             jackjr@mroklaw.com


         - and -

      Bradley D. Brickell, Esq.
      BRICKELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1014 24th Ave N.W. Suite 100,
      Norman, OK 73069
      Telephone: (405) 360-0400
      Facsimile: (405) 360-9990
      Email: bbrickell@bradbrickell.com


GOODY SHOP: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Eggs, Milk & Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           The Goody Shop
Distribution:             New Brunswick
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8906

Affected Products:

   -- Date Squares
   -- Crispy Crunch Cookies
   -- Jam Jam Cookies
   -- Molasses Cookies
   -- Chocolate Chip
   -- Scotch Cakes
   -- Variety Pack
   -- Molasses Date Cookies
   -- Peanut Butter Cookies
   -- Dick's Favorite Cookies
   -- Ginger Snap Cookies
   -- Oatmeal Date Cookies; and
   -- Waldorf Squares


GRAND SIERRA: Faces Wage & Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------
MyNews4.com & KRNV report that a local hotel is the defendant in
what could be the largest wage and overtime lawsuit in Reno's
history.  According to a press release, all current and former
hourly-paid employees of the Grand Sierra Resort and Casino will
be given an opportunity to join the class-action lawsuit.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover back wages and penalties for the time the
employees spent working without compensation.

"Among other things, the lawsuit sets forth specific allegations
that GSR wilfully deprived employees of pay for time they spent
engaging in work related activities without compensation pre and
post shift, such as retrieving keys, radios, cash, completing
paperwork, and attending mandatory training sessions and pre-shift
meetings," Attorney Joshua Buck said.

Approximately 4,748 current and former employees who worked at the
GSR from June 21, 2012 to the present will receive the Court-
approved Notice and a form to join the lawsuit.  Mr. Buck urges
those who receive notice to complete the form and return it, or
they will not be entitled to participate in any award of wages,
overtime and/or liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The lawsuit seeks to recover up to one hour of unpaid wages per
day per employee.  Although the exact amount of damages are yet
unknown, Mr. Buck estimates that damages could exceed $50 million.
The suit also alleges a miscalculation of the overtime rate of
pay.


HARLEY MARINE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Clint Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00195 (S.D.
Tex., June 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, is a marine towing company which provides
transportation services throughout Texas and the United States
coastlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


HARMONIC ARTS: Recalls Products Containing Sprouted Chia Seeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Harmonic Arts Botanical Dispensary,
                          Intuitive Path Super Foods
Distribution:             British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8917

The food recall warning issued on May 30, 2014, has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling various products containing sprouted chia
seeds from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products have been sold in British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and Quebec and through Internet sales.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by findings by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) during its investigation into a foodborne
illness outbreak.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in Stock Suit on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against HCSB Financial
Corporation in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry filed a
motion to reconsider a decision by the court to grant summary
judgment to the defendants, according to the company's May 20,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case
No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The Complaint named the Company and Horry
County State Bank as Defendants.  However, the Complaint was never
served on the Company or Bank.  On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were contacted by
employees of the Bank, who then solicited a sale of Bank stock.
The Amended Complaint further alleges that Bank employees did not
disclose material information about the Bank's financial condition
to the Plaintiff and others prior to their respective purchases of
stock. The Amended Complaint seeks the certification of a class
action to include all those purchasers of Bank stock who were
solicited to purchase such stock between July 1, 2009 and December
31, 2011. Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for violation of
the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil
conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company and the Bank made a motion
for summary judgment in March 2014, and the court granted the
motion for summary judgment on April 8, 2014.  Mr. Shelley's
attorney subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit by Subordinated Debt Purchasers
-------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation is facing a lawsuit filed in the Court
of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of
South Carolina, County of Horry, on behalf of a group of
subordinated debt purchasers, according to the company's May 20,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Plaintiff Jan W. Snyder purchased $25,000 in subordinated debt
notes in or around March 2010.  After making three semi-annual
interest payments, the Company was precluded from making further
payments by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.  On January 14,
2014 Mr. Snyder sued the Company, the Bank, and several current
and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014-CP-26-0204. He is
alleging that he and a similarly situated class of subordinated
debt purchasers have suffered an unspecified amount of damages
resulting from the Defendants' wrongful conduct leading up to
their respective purchases of subordinated debt notes. There are
several causes of action alleged, including fraud, violation of
state securities statutes, negligence and others.  Mr. Snyder has
brought this case on his behalf and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated purchasers of subordinated debt notes.


HOME DEPOT: Texas Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Houser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00688 (E.D.
Tex., June 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and
litigation expenses and costs, including expert witness fees and
expenses.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business
in the state of Texas with its principal place of business at 2455
Paces Ferry Rd SE, Atlanta, GA 30339-4024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel, Jr, Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200,
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


HONDA: Recalls 2,520 ATVs Due to Steering Problems
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              A.T.V.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           2520
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014205
TC ID number:             2014205

On certain ATVs, due to a manufacturing defect, the steering shaft
could break.  This would result in a loss of steering control,
increasing the risk of an accident causing injury and/or property
damage.  Dealers will inspect the steering shaft and replace if
necessary.

Note: This recall supersedes recall 2013319.  Vehicles which
received replacement steering shafts under the previous campaign
will require re-inspection.

Affected products: 2012, 2013 HONDA TRX500FM - FOREMAN 500


IM SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Pop-Up Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Reed
Elsevier and a Texas-based internet marketing firm "trick" law
firm website visitors by overlaying advertisements that illegally
divert them to competing, lead-buying attorneys, four law offices
claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Anthony L. Allen, with Allen & Wisner LLC in
Muskogee, sued Plano-based Internet marketing firm IM Solutions
LLC and publishing giant Reed Elsevier.  The plaintiffs claim the
defendants' pop-up advertisements can be displayed even if pop-up
blocking software is in place, because of a hidden browser plug-
in.

"IM Solutions engages or affiliates with companies that display
online advertisements by using adware or malware browser plug-ins
surreptitiously downloaded to the computers of millions of
consumers and activated with consumers' authorization," the 38-
page complaint states.  "IM Solutions' pop-ups are overlaid on and
often partially obscure non-lead buying lawyers' web pages."

IMS and Reed Elsevier's use of the plaintiffs' websites and
trademarks cause prospective clients to be "initially confused"
because the pop-ups appear to be part of the underlying web page
or related to the plaintiff's trademarks, the plaintiffs claim.
They claim the advertisements blend in with the content and area
of practice of the underlying, non-lead-buying law firm website
and may cover up key information from the website, including the
firm name and contact information.

"The pop-up does not disclose that it originates elsewhere, and it
invites a prospect to enter contact details and 'get legal
advice,'" the complaint states.  "When a prospective client
submits information using the pop-up, IM Solutions immediately
routs the prospect's information to defendant Reed Elsevier.  Reed
Elsevier promptly contacts the prospect to say that the prospect
has been matched with the 'firm' of IM Solutions, which is not a
law firm at all.  Meanwhile, IM Solutions forwards the prospect's
contact details to a lead-buying lawyer."

IMS claims to have more than 200 lead-buying lawyers in all 50
states, the plaintiffs say.

"Lead-buying lawyers pay per prospect, and some earn hundreds of
thousands of dollars annually in fees from prospects raided by the
defendants," the complaint states.

IMS and Reed Elsevier specifically target non-lead-buying
attorneys because they do not display the advertisements to
prospective clients visiting the websites of lead-buying
attorneys, the complaint alleges.

IMS and Reed Elsevier did not immediately respond to requests for
comment evening.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and actual and punitive
damages for trademark infringement, tortuous interference, civil
conspiracy and violations of the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  They also seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from using class members' websites and trademarks.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Lawrence Murphy with Richards Connor
in Tulsa.

Two of the plaintiff law offices are from Oklahoma, two from
Tennessee.


JAGUAR: Recalls XJ Model Car Due to Defect in Restraints Control
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           1
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014202
TC ID number:             2014202
Manufacturer recall
number:                   J040

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 - Occupant Protection.
A defect in the programming of the occupant classification system
could result in non-compliance to the standard and increase the
risk of injury.

Dealers will reprogram the restraints control module.

Affected products: 2013 JAGUAR XJ


JAGUAR: Recalls XF Model CAR Due to Incorrect Brake Line Routing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           29
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014201
TC ID number:             2014201
Manufacturer recall
number:                   J036

On certain vehicles, the right rear brake line may have been
routed incorrectly and may come into contact with a rear subframe
bracket, causing abrasion damage which could result in a brake
fluid leak.  This could increase stopping distances, possibly
resulting in a crash causing injury and/or property damage.

Correction: Dealers will inspect and reroute and/or replace the
brake line, as necessary.

Affected products: 2013, 2014 JAGUAR XF


JP MORGAN CHASE: Sued for Revoking Cardholders' Reward Points
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Gao, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:14-
cv-04281 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2014), seeks to redress deceptive and
unlawful conduct in revoking reward points of cardholders at the
Company's sole discretion at anytime, even when the cardholder's
account was not in default, without any form of compensation to
cardholders.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. is a multinational banking and financial
services holding company which controls various entities,
including Chase Bank, NA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara Ellen Olk, Esq.
      Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
      Ted E. Trief, Esq.
      TRIEF AND OLK
      150 East 58 Street
      New York, NY 10155
      Telephone: (212) 486-6060
      Facsimile: (212) 317-2946
      E-mail: bolk@triefandolk.com
              cduffy@triefandolk.com
              ttrief@triefandolk.com

         - and -

     Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (646) 722-8500
     Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
     E-mail: sfriedland@gelaw.com

        - and -

    Steven D. Resnick, Esq.
    KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
    280 King of Prussia Road
    Radnor, PA 19087
    Telephone: (610) 667-7706
    Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
    E-mail: sresnick@btkmc.com


KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Gallant" Action Over Beverage Cartridges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Gallant v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Keurig, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04295 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2014), seeks to recover
damages due to the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the
market for beverage cartridges compatible with its single-serve
brewers.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212)686-0114


KIA: Recalls 164 Cadenza Cars Due to Wheel Failure
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Wheels
Units affected:           164
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014204
TC ID number:             2014204
Manufacturer recall
number:                   RC089

On certain vehicles equipped with 19" non-chrome aluminum rims,
the wheels may fracture when subjected to a strong impact, such as
a pot hole.  This could cause wheel failure, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will install redesigned wheels.

Affected products: 2014 KIA Cadenza


KUO HUA: Recalls Noodles, Wafers, Pastry and Beverages
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8902

Kuo Hua Trading Co. Ltd. is recalling noodles, wafers, pastry and
beverages from the marketplace because they may contain egg, milk
or wheat which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to egg, milk or wheat should not consume the recalled
products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, milk or wheat do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


LES ALIMENTS: Recalls NutriVilla "Oregano Rubbed" Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments Saifi Rano Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8907

Affected products: 200 g. NutriVilla Oregano Rubbed produced
between March 31, 2014 to April 16, 2014 with UPC No. 6 93997
00360 6


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Storage Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that LG Electronics pushes its
Android smartphones with false claims about their storage
capacity, which may be "as little as 11% of what LG advertises," a
class action claims in Federal Court in Newark, N.J.


LIME ENERGY: Judge Settles Shareholder Class Action for $2.5 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Downey, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that
a federal judge has issued a final order approving Lime Energy's
$2.5 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit over $31.6
million of misreported revenue at the Huntersville-based company.

The settlement includes payments of up to $1,000 to shareholders
who bought the company's stock over the nearly four years in which
the revenue was improperly reported.

Judge Sara Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois also ordered
Lime to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of more
than $791,000.

In a filing on June 13 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Lime says it expects the entire $2.5 million
settlement will be paid by insurance.

Judge Ellis' order brings to an end the shareholder actions over
the financial issues.  The SEC has also announced it is
investigating the misreporting.

                      Reporting irregularities

In July 2012, Lime executives discovered at least $12 million in
misreported revenue over several previous quarters.  The company
suspended regular financial reporting while it investigated the
irregularities.

That took more than a year and led to the dismissal of seven
employees.  Lime determined that $14.2 million of the revenue was
simply false.  The remaining $17.4 million was reported before it
had been received by the company. The misreporting occurred from
May 2008 through December 2012.

The class-action suit, Satterfield v. Lime Energy, was filed just
days after the announcement of the misreported income.  It also
named the company's former CEO, John O'Rourke, and former Chief
Financial Officer Jeffrey Mistarz as defendants.


LINKEDIN CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an article for the National Law Review, Benjamin M Rattner,
Esq., and Alexander Kaplan, Esq., at Proskauer Rose LLP, report
that it appears that California's consumer-friendly Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq. ("UCL"),
encompasses claims made regarding website privacy policies.  In In
re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation, No. 5:12-cv-0388-EJD, a
Northern District of California court denied LinkedIn's motion to
dismiss a putative class action concerning LinkedIn's allegedly
misleading privacy policy statement and held that putative
plaintiffs had adequately alleged causation and injury under the
UCL.

This case arises from a data security breach in which hackers
stole usernames and passwords from LinkedIn.  In other cases,
plaintiffs have attempted to establish injury by alleging that the
theft of login information increased the likelihood of identity
theft.  Rather than use this nebulous theory, the lead plaintiff
in In re LinkedIn is claiming that her injury stemmed from payment
for LinkedIn premium service in reliance on LinkedIn's statement
that her information "will be protected with industry standard
protocols and technology."  Specifically, the lead plaintiff
alleges that had she known that LinkedIn allegedly did not use
industry-standard protocols, she would have tried to negotiate a
discount for the service or not have purchased it at all, and thus
she suffered injury.  Put differently, the lead plaintiff claims
an injury analogous to one who paid a premium price for a product
based on misrepresentations on that product's packaging.

Trying to defeat this claim pre-class certification or discovery,
LinkedIn countered that packaging and labeling differ
significantly from a privacy statement.  Additionally, LinkedIn
argued that the consumer suffered no injury because brands have
inherent value independent from how a particular product
functions.  The Court rejected these distinctions, noting that
California defines "advertising" broadly.  Thus, it held that
setting different standing requirements for labeling and
advertising compared to alleged misrepresentations in website
privacy statements would contravene California's broad consumer
remedies.  Accordingly, the case will now move forward to
discovery.


MARTIN MARIETTA: Faces Shareholder Action in NY Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors of Martin Marietta
concealed material information from shareholders in its proxy
statement and prospectus for a merger with Texas Industries,
investors claim in a shareholder class action in New York County
Supreme Court in Manhattan.


MARY GIULIANI: Faces "Darrow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Darrow, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mary Giuliani Catering & Events, Inc., Mary Giuliani,
and Ryan Giuliani, Case No. 1:14-cv-04287 (S.D.N.Y., June 13,
2014), seeks to recover misappropriated tips, unpaid overtime, and
spread of-hours pay.

Mary Giuliani Catering & Events, Inc., is a high-end catering and
event company that caters events for well known individuals, such
as Stella McCartney and Leonardo DiCaprio, and companies, like J.
Crew, MTV, Bon Appetit Magazine, and many others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Molly Anne Brooks, Esq.
      Rachel Megan Bien, Esq.
      Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: mbrooks@outtengolden.com
              rmb@outtengolden.com
              sabrahamson@outtengolden.com


MASSAPEQUA DINER: Faces "Tavarez" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Massapequa Diner, Inc., and Valentino Zarboutis, in
his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-03737
(E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Massapequa Diner, Inc., is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business located at 4420 Sunrise Highway,
Massapequa, New York 11758.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael John Palitz, Esq.
      KLATTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: mpalitz@klafterolsen.com


MED-REV RECOVERIES: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minette Thomas-Dotson, on behalf of herself individually and all
others similarly situated v. Med-Rev Recoveries, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-04224 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive,
deceptive and unfair acts and practices.

Med-Rev Recoveries, Inc., is engaged in collection of defaulted
consumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI
      450 Seventh Avenue,
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 268-2128
      Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING: Does Not Pay Overtime, N.Y. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Sepulveda, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and
John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-04240 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2014),
arises from the alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff their time
during break periods and for their time working past their shift
end times.

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is a New York not-for -
profit corporation, with its principal place of business at 1275
York Ave., New York, N.Y. 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


MINUTE MAID: Sued in N.D. Florida Over Misleading Product Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew E. Stansfield and Michael Stephen Mathews, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Minute Maid
Company, a division of the Coca-Cola Company, and The Coca-Cola
Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-00290 (N.D. Fla., June 13, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for the alleged misleading statement
that the product consists predominantly of pomegranate and
blueberry juice when it in fact consists predominantly of less
expensive apple and grape juices.

The Minute Maid Company is a division of The Coca-Cola Company,
and produces and sells Coca-Cola's juice blend.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste. 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Dismisses Employees' Fund Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Morgan Stanley is not liable for the profit losses it caused to
employee retirement accounts because it contributed stock rather
than cash, the 2nd Circuit ruled.  Though the total combined value
of company stock in the plans was approximately $2.2 billion at
the end of 2007, that figure plummeted to roughly $675 million a
year later, according to the May 29 decision.

Employees had filed five complaints against the bank between
Dec. 14, 2007, and Feb. 16, 2008, as the values of their funds
dipped with the economic downturn.  Those cases were consolidated
into two federal class action lawsuits, which U.S. District Judge
Deborah Batts threw out based on legal precedent that she said
entitled Morgan Stanley to the "presumption of prudence."

Though the 2nd Circuit upheld those dismissals, it cited a
different rationale.  The bank did not act as a "fiduciary" under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, under which
they were sued, the three-judge panel found unanimously.

"Fiduciary status turns on ERISA's plain language and does not
exist simply because an employer's business decision proves
detrimental to a covered plan or its beneficiaries," the unsigned,
15-page opinion states.

The judges added that "the challenged conduct, even to the extent
detrimental to the plans, was not undertaken in performance of a
fiduciary function."


O'REILLY AUTO: Faces Overtime Class Action in Las Vegas
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that O'Reilly Auto Enterprises
stiffs managers for overtime though they work 50 hours a week or
more, a class action claims in Federal Court in Las Vegas.


OCEAN POWER: Faces "Chew" Suit Over Victorian Wave Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yoke M. Chew and Zhi Y. Chan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.,
Charles F. Dunleavy, and Mark A. Featherstone, Case No. 3:14-cv-
03815 (D.N.J., June 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the
Company may have misstated the nature and circumstances of the
agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty Ltd and the
Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., develops and is seeking to
commercialize proprietary systems that generate electricity by
harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN POWER: Faces "Roby" Suit Over Exchange Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terence Roby, behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., and Charles Dunleavy, Case No.
3:14-cv-03799 (D.N.J., June 13, 2014), is brought on behalf of a
class of investors who bought the company's common stock during
the period beginning on January 14, 2014 through June 9, 2014
bringing claims under the Securities Exchange Act.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., develops and is seeking to
commercialize systems that generate electricity through ocean
waves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P,
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


OCEAN POWER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Ocean
Power Technologies, Inc. on June 13 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of Ocean Power Technologies securities between
January 14, 2014 and June 9, 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.

Ocean Power Technologies engages in the development and
commercialization of proprietary systems that generate electricity
by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves, primarily in
the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia.  The Complaint
alleges that defendants may have misstated the nature and/or
circumstances of an agreement between the Australian Renewable
Energy Agency and Victorian Wave Partners Pty Ltd. -- a project-
specific operating entity wholly-owned by the Company's subsidiary
-- related to a planned wave power station project off the coast
of Australia.  As a result, defendants' statements concerning the
Victorian Wave Partners project, and positive statements about
Ocean Power's business, operations and prospects, were materially
false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 10, 2014, the Company disclosed that on June 9, 2014,
Charles F. Dunleavy was terminated as the chief executive officer
of Ocean Power Technologies.  The Company also disclosed that the
board of directors appointed a Special Committee, composed of
outside directors and the interim chief executive officer, which
will retain outside counsel to assist in an investigation into the
agreement between Victorian Wave Partners and the Australian
Renewable Energy Agency, and related public statements concerning
the project.  Following this news, the price of Ocean Power
Technologies shares dropped approximately 34%, to close on
June 10, 2014, at $1.63 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from June 13, 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.


OSHKOSH CORPORATION: Recalls 6 Tactical Protector Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014203
TC ID number:             2014203

On certain vehicles, voltage fluctuations in the fuel transfer
pump could over-pressurize the primary fuel tank and cause the
fuel filler cap to pop off and discharge fuel.  Fuel leakage, in
the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing
injury and/or property damage.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products: 2011, 2012 Oshkosh Tactical Protector Vehicle


PROPHASE LABS: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Misleading Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint was filed on May 19, 2014 by a
consumer against ProPhase Labs, Inc. in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, according to the company's
May 23, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit is captioned Weisblum v. ProPhase Labs, Inc.

The lawsuit, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of certain products sold by the Company,
alleges that the Company engaged in false and misleading
marketing, advertising and sales with respect to such products.
The Complainant seeks, among other things, certification of the
case as a class action, a judgment against the defendants for
damages in an amount to be determined by the court and/or jury,
and an award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs and their
attorneys.


RARE HOSPITALITY: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Carosone" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Carosone, and Jennifer Gavillan, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rare Hospitality
Management, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, d/b/a Longhorn
Steakhouse of West Palm, and Darden Corporation, a Florida Profit
Corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80788 (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rare Hospitality Management, Inc. is a Foreign Profit Corporation
d/b/a Longhorn Steakhouse of West Palm, is a Florida-based company
which owns and operates the Longhorn Steakhouse of West Palm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis A. Creed , III, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
      501 North Reo Street,
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


READYLINK HEALTHCARE: 9th Circuit Tosses Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Villmer and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that
the Ninth Circuit on June 12 tossed a putative class action
brought by nursing agency ReadyLink Healthcare Inc. against the
California State Compensation Insurance Fund, saying California
state courts already ruled on the company's Revenue Code
preemption arguments, effectively killing the case.

In a unanimous opinion, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz said that although
a lower federal court erred by abstaining from ruling on the case,
the California state courts' later rulings that rejected
ReadyLink's arguments regarding allegedly owed workers'
compensation insurance premiums triggered issue preclusion, which
prevented the circuit court from hearing ReadyLink's arguments on
the issue.

"Issue preclusion bars successive litigation of an issue of fact
or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court
determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue
recurs in the context of a different claim," Judge Hurwitz wrote.
"Applying the California issue preclusion test, we conclude that
the decision of the California Court of Appeal bars ReadyLink's
preemption claim."

ReadyLink originally filed suit against the State Compensation
Insurance Fund in a California district court in November 2011,
seeking a ruling that the insurance commissioner's policy imposing
additional workers' compensation insurance premiums on employers
is preempted by IRS regulations.

The company alleged the new rule requires employers to adhere to
"precisely the sort of burdensome red tape record-keeping" that
IRS safe-harbor provisions are intended to avoid and would force
it to forego the protection of IRS safe harbors or face a premium
hike of more than $500,000 for a single policy year, according to
its opening appeal brief.

In April 2012, the district court invoked the Younger abstention
doctrine, named for the case Younger v. Harris, and dismissed the
case, ruling that ReadyLink could and should have raised its
preemption argument in a state court proceeding, and therefore the
district court was free to abstain from deciding this case,
according to the brief.

The State Compensation Insurance Fund painted a different picture
in its answering brief, however, saying that ReadyLink's appeal
was just its continuing effort to fight a determination made in a
2007 audit that the company was concealing much of its total
payroll by falsely labeling payments to employees as "per diem"
allowances to avoid paying $500,000 in workers compensation
insurance premiums it rightfully owed.

The state fund argued that ReadyLink fought this determination
before agency tribunals, appealing to the Los Angeles Superior
Court and then the California Court of Appeal, where it made the
preemption argument for the first time.  The state appeals court
rejected ReadyLink's argument, and the California Supreme Court
denied its petition for review, according to the answering brief.

And according to the latest Ninth Circuit opinion, ReadyLink is
now stuck with the ruling of the California Court of Appeal.

ReadyLink is represented by Seth A. Rafkin -- srafkin@cooley.com
-- and Jennifer M. Bogue -- jbogue@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

The state insurance fund is represented by Bruce D. Celebrezze and
Benjamin E. Shiftan of Sedgwick LLP and in-agency counsel.

The case is ReadyLink Healthcare Inc. v. State Compensation
Insurance Fund et al., case number 12-56248, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


RMP ATHLETIC: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear with Drawstrings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 2, 2014
Posting date:             June 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38645

Affected products: Various Children's Upper Outerwear with
Drawstrings

The recall involves various children's upper outerwear with
drawstrings.

These styles in various colours are included in the recall:

  Brand         Description                                 Style
  -----         -----------                                 -----
Brooks   Youth Poly P/O Hood (Small and Medium Sizes)       MS673Y
RPZN     Solid Fleece Hoodies - 2T-6X                       95862
RPZN     Hammerhead Hoodies - Small & Med. Youth Sizes      75861
RPZN     Solid Fleece Hoodies - Small and Med. Sizes        75862
RPZN     Hooligan Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes     78938
RPZN     Charger Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes      78968
RPZN     Dominator Jacket - Small and Med. Youth Sizes      78961
RPZN     Limelight Jacket - Small and Med. Youth Sizes      78963
RPZN     Mob Boss Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes     78937
RPZN     Shadow Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes       78967
RPZN     Standard Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes     78964
RPZN     Stellar Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes      78965
RPZN     Switchback Jacket - Small and Med. Youth Sizes     78966
PWDR ROOM   Downtown Rider Length Jacket - Small and Med. Youth
              Sizes                                         88966
PWDR ROOM   Gilly Dot Jacket - Small and Med. Youth Sizes   88975
PWDR ROOM   Glitter Popover - Small and Med. Youth Sizes    88977
PWDR ROOM   Gold Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes      88963
PWDR ROOM   Golden Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes    88976
PWDR ROOM   Pawn Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes      88964
PWDR ROOM   Vacant Jacket - Small and Medium Youth Sizes    88984

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught
on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being
dragged.

Neither RMP Athletic Locker nor Health Canada has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these recalled hoodies and jackets.

Approximately 3,003 of the recalled hoodies and jackets were sold
at RMP Athletic Locker and various retailers across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from June 2011 to February 2014
and manufactured in Bangladesh, Cambodia and China.

Companies:
   Distributor      RMP Athletic Locker Ltd.
                    Mississauga
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
hood/neck area to eliminate the hazard.


ROADCO TRANSPORTATION: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Delgado" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Delgado, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Roadco Transportation
Services Inc., and Paul R. Adelman, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04429 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

Defendant RoadCo Transportation Services, Inc. is located at 3417
South Cicero Avenue, Cicero, Illinois 60804.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Raisa Alicea, Esq.
       CONSUMER LAW GROUP
       6232 N. Pulaski Rd., Ste. 200
       Chicago, IL 60646
       Telephone: (312) 878-1263
       E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


RONAN, MT: Faces Class Action Over Ineligible Police Officers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Devlin, writing for Missoulian, reports that a class-action
lawsuit was filed again the City of Ronan.

Eleven months ago, Anthony Chaney and his brother Donald were at
the Second Chance Saloon when they say Donald, a U.S. military
combat veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder,
began experiencing a PTSD episode.  It happened in the smoking
area behind the bar, and Anthony -- who says he has dealt with
similar episodes in the past -- led his brother to a nearby park
where he held Donald down and tried to calm him during the
periodic outbursts.

When law enforcement officers responded to a report of a fight in
the park -- more than hour after the episode began, according to
court documents -- Anthony Chaney says he informed them Donald was
a combat veteran with PTSD.  But, he alleges in a class-action
lawsuit filed this month against the city of Ronan, its mayor, a
former police chief and the chief's son, he was pulled away from
Donald.

Donald Chaney was placed in handcuffs and Anthony says defendant
Trevor Wadsworth, who was not in uniform, forced Anthony to the
ground, injuring Anthony's neck in the process, placed him in
handcuffs too and told him he was under arrest.

"At all times relevant to this complaint, and as early as May of
2011, defendant Trevor Wadsworth was aware that he was not
eligible to serve as a peace officer in the state of Montana," the
lawsuit says.

So was then-chief of police Daniel Wadsworth, Trevor's father, who
also responded to the July 14, 2013 incident, according to the
lawsuit.  Ronan Mayor Kim Aipperspach was informed Trevor
Wadsworth was ineligible to serve as a peace officer in the state
of Montana in a Nov. 2, 2012 letter from the Montana Public Safety
Officer Standards and Training Council, it says.

Attorneys say more than 100 people may be eligible to join the
class-action suit.  Anyone, they say, "subject to Fourth Amendment
search or seizure by Trevor Wadsworth or other ineligible peace
officers acting as city of Ronan police officers.

Two days after, but not because of, the incident, the POST Council
stripped Dan Wadsworth of his state credentials and suspended him
from service.  The council said the chief had falsified records to
gain his son admittance to the Montana Law Enforcement Academy.

Trevor Wadsworth allegedly left the academy in 2010 after he was
unable to produce a "hire slip" proving he was a sworn officer and
an employee of the Ronan Police Department at the time.  The
council said Aipperspach still approved Trevor's hiring in May of
2011, and Trevor was sworn in and began receiving paychecks.

The council also warned that the city was risking lawsuits because
of its police department and its hiring practices.

Employing officers who have failed to complete necessary training
brings into question the legality of any arrests they make, and
the legality of any other actions they take as police officers,
and may "subject the agency to both public condemnation and
serious civil liability," the findings report said.

The lawsuit says:

- The arrest violated rights guaranteed to Anthony Chaney and all
Americans under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and 14th
Amendments to the U.S Constitution.

-- That Trevor Wadsworth used unnecessary and unwarranted force
to restrain and arrest Anthony Chaney.

-- That the city of Ronan and its police department "were
deliberately indifferent to and acted in conscious disregard for
the need to train, supervise and discipline their law enforcement
officers and reserve officers with respect to the use of force,
arresting individuals, and investigating the misconduct of law
enforcement officers."

-- That the city and its police department "were deliberately
indifferent to and acted in conscious disregard for the need to
hire police officers eligible to serve as peace officers in
Montana."

The city has been through two police chiefs and is searching for a
third since Wadsworth, who had been chief for 13 years, was
stripped of his credentials less than a year ago.

The first lasted just 11 weeks and the second was demoted in
April, after 13 weeks.

Summons for the civil action indicate Dan Wadsworth was served his
in Great Falls, and Trevor Wadsworth was served with his in
Leadville, Colorado.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Missoula, and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial.

In addition to the city, its police department, the Wadsworths and
Aipperspach, it also lists as defendants "Does 1-10" -- other
officers hired by Ronan who may not have been eligible to serve
under state law, but made arrests, who have not yet been
identified.

In their report last year, POST investigators said they also
looked into charges that Dan Wadsworth had falsified academy
applications for two other officers hired by Ronan in 2004 and
2005, but found insufficient evidence to support those
allegations.

Timothy Bechtold -- tim@bechtoldlaw.net -- of Bechtold Law Firm of
Missoula signed the complaint, which also lists the Public
Interest Defense Center of Missoula, and the Public Defenders
Office of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Pablo, as
attorneys for the plaintiffs.

CSKT spokesman Rob McDonald said the tribal public defenders are
involved "because it's likely some people from the tribal
community" will be among those eligible to join the class-action
suit.

Anthony Chaney is an enrolled CSKT member.

The lawsuit says when CSKT Police arrived at the park on July 14,
2013, they took Donald Chaney into custody and released Anthony
Chaney from his handcuffs.

Anthony Chaney was never charged with a crime from the incident.


SANTA FE GOLD: Still Faces Lone Mountain Suit Over Ortiz Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Fe Gold Corporation continues to face a suit filed by Lone
Mountain Ranch, LLC, owner of the surface estate overlying the
company's Ortiz gold property, according to Santa Fe's May 20,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2013 Lone Mountain Ranch, LLC, owner of the surface
estate overlying the company's Ortiz gold property, filed a
lawsuit against the Company and the company's lessor, Ortiz Mines,
Inc. The lawsuit seeks to clarify Lone Mountain Ranch's rights and
obligations under the split estate regime. Specifically, Lone
Mountain Ranch seeks a declaratory judgment that it may
participate in permit hearings, agency proceedings, and private
activities related to the permitting of the Ortiz project without
being in violation of common law duties to not interfere with
development of the mineral estate.


SANTA FE GOLD: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Tyhee Gold Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico,
County of Bernalillo dismissed a lawsuit filed over the merger of
Santa Fe Gold Corporation and Tyhee Gold Corp., according to Santa
Fe's May 20, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 5, 2014 the Company announced it had received notice that
Tony Cavanaugh, an alleged stockholder of the Company, filed in
the Second Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico,
County of Bernalillo, a purported class action complaint on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Company,
the five current members of its Board of Directors, and Tyhee Gold
Corp. and Tyhee Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, "Tyhee"). The
plaintiff contended that the members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties arising out of their
efforts to effectuate the merger of Santa Fe and Tyhee pursuant to
an unfair process, for an unfair price and lacking material
disclosures. Further, the plaintiff contended that Tyhee aided and
abetted such conduct. The plaintiff's complaint sought, among
other things, damages, injunctive relief, recession of the
proposed Tyhee transaction to the extent already implemented, and
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. On March 31, 2014, the
Company announced that the purported class action filed by Tony
Cavanaugh had been dismissed without prejudice.


SCORES HOLDING: Provides Update on Labor Lawsuit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its May 20, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Scores
Holding Company, Inc. provided updates on the settlement it
reached with two of its former principal shareholders in relation
to a labor lawsuit.

On September 26, 2011, the Company, Richard Goldring and Elliot
Osher (Goldring and Osher were formerly two of the Company's
principal shareholders) (collectively the "Defendants") and Sari
Diaz et al. (the "Plaintiffs") entered into a Court approved Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement")
relating to a purported class action and collective action on
behalf of all tipped employees filed by Plaintiffs, pursuant to
which Defendants agreed to make a settlement payment of $450,000
to resolve and settle awards to Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay the
employer portion of payroll taxes on approximately $300,000 in
distributions, approximately $15,600.

In a settlement payment agreement among the Company, Goldring and
Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the Defendants'
obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay $64,500 of
Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated attorney. In
consideration for the Company's payment of these obligations,
Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to pay the
Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the
unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments of
$11,965 per month. To secure his obligations under this agreement,
Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of his
interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. As of March 31,
2014, the settlement receivable is $128,383.

On December 29, 2011, the Company entered into a Promissory Note
with Goldring for $30,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the unpaid balance. To secure his obligations under this
agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of
his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. Three payments of
$11,965 are due beginning March 2015. As of March 31, 2014, this
promissory note balance is $33,564.


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Walkaway Plus System Over Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 5, 2014
Posting date:             June 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40139

Recalled Products

Walkaway Plus System - 40 - Instrument
All serial numbers distributed from May 2013 to April 2014.
Model or catalog number: B1018-283

There is a potential failure with access door hinge.  The failure
can cause the springs to dislodge and be ejected towards the
operator causing a potential safety issue.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
                     500 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514, PO Box 6101
                     Newark
                     19714-6101
                     Delaware
                     United States


SODEXO INC: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Angenette Walker, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Sodexo, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00045 (S.D. Miss., June
12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sodexo, Inc., operates a food service company which provides
services to its clients in Lorman, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Espy, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER W. ESPY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      P. O. Box 13722,
      Jackson, MS 39236-3722
      Telephone: (601) 812-5300
      Facsimile: (601) 500-5719
      E-mail: chris.espy@espylawpllc.com


SONY MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Fake Michael Jackson Songs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that Sony Music
Entertainment lied to customers about the vocalist singing three
of the songs on one of Michael Jackson's posthumous albums,
tricking them into spending money on an album that includes songs
he didn't sing, according to a putative class action filed in
California court on June 12.

Plaintiff Vera Serova alleges she bought the album, "Michael,"
because Sony certified on the cover that all songs were sung by
Jackson, according to the suit.  But three songs were sung by
people pretending to be Jackson, according to an audio expert she
hired to analyze the tracks.

The songs "Breaking News," "Monster" and "Keep Your Head Up" --
known as the Cascio tracks, after the location where they were
produced -- don't feature Jackson's voice, though Sony assured
listeners both on the album cover and in later dust-ups over the
album's production that he was indeed the singer, according to the
suit.

"In reliance on defendants' claims that Jackson performed the lead
vocals on the Cascio tracks, plaintiff Vera Serova purchased
'Michael' on compact disc," the plaintiff wrote in the suit.
"Plaintiff is informed and believes that Jackson did not actually
perform the lead vocals."

Sony sold the allegedly fake Jackson songs not only on compact
disc, but also in individual form on electronic outlets such as
iTunes and as part of a collection of songs sold in 2013,
Ms. Serova claimed.

The album dropped in December 2010, a year and a half after
Jackson's death.  Since then, controversy has swirled around the
vocal recordings used on the album, particularly for the three
songs included in the suit, Ms. Serova said.

Sony said Jackson recorded the songs in the basement of the family
home of one of his friends, producer Edward Cascio, but several
Jackson family members disputed that the King of Pop was the
singer of those songs, Ms. Serova said.

Jackson's estate released a list of people vouching that the lead
vocals on the three songs belong to Jackson, according to the
suit. On the list are sound engineers and producers who worked
with Jackson for years, as well as his vocal director, according
to the suit.

But Ms. Serova, having heard the songs after she bought the CD in
June 2011, hired an audio expert to analyze the tracks, according
to her claims.

The expert concluded that Michael Jackson was not the lead singer
on the songs in question, despite Sony's insistence -- even on the
packaging of the CD -- that he was, she claimed.

Ms. Serova claims Sony's alleged lies about the true lead singer
of the three songs constitutes fraud and violations of
California's unfair competition law and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, according to the suit.

Serova is represented by Ray E. Gallo -- rgallo@gallo-law.com --
and Dominic R. Valerian -- dvalerian@gallo-law.com -- of Gallo
LLP.

The case is Vera Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., case
number BC548468, in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


SPARTAN STORES: Minn. Suit Dismisses Suit Over Nash-Finch Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
entered a final order dismissing the suit Benson v. Covington et
al., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574, which was filed over the merger
between Nash-Finch Company and Spartan Stores, Inc., according to
Spartan's May 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 19, 2014.

On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint (the
"State Court Action") was filed in the District Court for the
Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin
(the "State Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch Company in
connection with the pending merger with Spartan Stores, Inc. The
State Court Action is styled Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al.,
Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That complaint was amended on August 28,
2013, after Spartan Stores filed a registration statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission containing a preliminary
version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus. On September 9,
2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the State Court
Action. On or about September 19, 2013, a second putative class
action complaint (the "Federal Court Action" and, together with
the State Court Action, the "Putative Class Actions") was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
(the "Federal Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch. The Federal
Court Action was styled Benson v. Covington et al., Case No. 0:13-
cv-02574.

The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash-
Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving a merger that provided for inadequate consideration
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest; that the merger agreement included allegedly preclusive
deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores
allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their
duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions
also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of
allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court
Action also asserted additional claims individually on behalf of
the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative
Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit.

SpartanNash believes that these lawsuits are without merit;
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed,
as part of settlement discussions, to make certain supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus requested by
the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus. On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered
into the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of
the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding
outlined the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Putative Class Actions.

In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash-Finch and
Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental disclosures in
the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in response to the
Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding
contemplated that the parties will use their best efforts to agree
upon, execute and present to the State Court for approval a
stipulation of settlement within thirty days after the later of
the date that the Merger is consummated or the date that
plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and that upon
execution of such stipulation, and as a condition to final
approval of the settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action
would withdraw the claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal
Action, with any individual claims being dismissed with prejudice.
The Memorandum of Understanding provides that Nash-Finch will pay,
on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount not
to exceed $550,000. On February 11, 2014, the parties executed the
Stipulation and Agreement Compromise, Settlement and Release (the
"Stipulation of Settlement.") to resolve, discharge and settle the
Putative Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject
to customary conditions, including approval by the State Court,
which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of
such settlement. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Court entered a
final order dismissing the Federal Court Action with prejudice. On
February 28, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, the plaintiffs in the State Court Action filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, conditional certification of class, and approval of
notice to be furnished to the class. On March 7, 2014, the State
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement
Stipulation, subject to a hearing, scheduled for May 20, 2014. At
the hearing on May 20, 2014, the Settlement Stipulation was
approved.

SpartanNash contributes to the Central States multi-employer
pension plan based on obligations arising from its collective
bargaining agreements in Bellefontaine, Ohio, Lima, Ohio, and
Grand Rapids, Michigan covering its distribution center union
associates. This plan provides retirement benefits to participants
based on their service to contributing employers.

The benefits are paid from assets held in trust for that purpose.
Trustees are appointed by contributing employers and unions;
however, SpartanNash is not a trustee. The trustees typically are
responsible for determining the level of benefits to be provided
to participants, as well as for such matters as the investment of
the assets and the administration of the plan. SpartanNash
currently contributes to the Central States, Southeast and
Southwest Areas Pension Fund under the terms outlined in the
"Primary Schedule" of Central States' Rehabilitation Plan. This
schedule requires varying increases in employer contributions over
the previous year's contribution. Increases are set within the
collective bargaining agreement and vary by location.
Based on the most recent information available to SpartanNash,
management believes that the present value of actuarial accrued
liabilities in this multi-employer plan significantly exceeds the
value of the assets held in trust to pay benefits. Because
SpartanNash is one of a number of employers contributing to this
plan, it is difficult to ascertain what the exact amount of the
underfunding would be, although management anticipates that
SpartanNash's contributions to this plan will increase each year.
Management believes that funding levels have not changed
significantly since December 28, 2013. To reduce this
underfunding, management expects meaningful increases in expense
as a result of required incremental multi-employer pension plan
contributions in future years. Any adjustment for withdrawal
liability will be recorded when it is probable that a liability
exists and can be reasonably determined.


SUNTERRA MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy,
                          Allergen - Sulphites, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sunterra Market
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
Distribution :            Retail
CFIA reference number:    8896


TECH REMODEL: Faces "Rios" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Rios and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Tech Remodel Inc., Steven Durham, Case No. 3:14-cv-02187
(N.D. Tex., June 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Tech Remodel Inc., is a company that regularly transacts business
within Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Dismisses Racketeering Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Cephalon and Teva Pharmaceuticals need not face racketeering
claims over their off-label promotion of the addictive painkiller
Fentora, a federal judge ruled.

The Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Welfare
Fund brought the complaint in December, hoping to represent a
class that allegedly paid higher prescription costs on behalf of
its members for Fentora, a powerful opioid with the active
ingredient fentanyl, a narcotic about 100 times more potent than
morphine.

Though the Food and Drug Administration approved the painkiller
only for cancer patients tolerant to "around-the-clock opioid
therapy," the fund said Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and its
subsidiary Cephalon Inc. promoted it for off-label uses.

Only about 7 percent of prescriptions for Fentora were written for
on-label uses through the first three years that it was sold,
according to the complaint.  Indeed, the fund pointed out that,
long before Fentora entered the market, Cephalon had to pay the
U.S. Department of Justice $425 million for its illegal marketing
of another fentanyl-based drug called Actiq.

Once Actiq lost its patent protection in 2006, Cephalon allegedly
bought rights to Fentora from Cima Labs to target the same off-
label market, aided by promotion companies and doctors.

Based on "reports of serious and life-threatening adverse events
in both properly-prescribed and misprescribed patients," however,
Cephalon's efforts to expand Fentora's indication to treat all
opioid-tolerant patients failed before an FDA advisory committee,
according to the complaint.

The FDA even chided Cephalon for misleading online advertisements
that failed to communicate the risks associated with the use of
the drug, the complaint states.

Senior U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III in Philadelphia
dismissed the complaint on May 21.

"Importantly, while Cephalon's actions may well constitute
improper off-label promotion under the FDCA and its regulations,
we reiterate that it does not follow that the promotion is
fraudulent," Bartle wrote, abbreviating the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act.  "Fentora's 'black box' warning label, available to
potential prescribing physicians, clearly identifies the dangers
of abuse and respiratory depression that form the basis of the
fund's concerns, and there is no allegation that the defendants
concealed this information.

"Without more, the fund's complaint fails adequately to allege any
misrepresentation or omission sufficient to plead a 'scheme to
defraud' for mail or wire fraud," the judge added.

Evidence of Cephalon's allegedly fraudulent online seminar and
publications about Fentora also failed to sway the court.

"We stress that it is not illegal for physicians, exercising their
independent medical judgment, to prescribe Fentora for off-label
use, that is, to patients outside of the breakthrough cancer pain
context," Bartle wrote. "Under the circumstances, it is simply
insufficient to allege off-label promotion by the defendants
without describing the 'who, what, when, where and how' of any
scheme to defraud as that term is defined by federal law, or
without providing the necessary precision or substantiation that
would otherwise excuse a failure to plead the date, place, or time
of the alleged fraud."


THIRTYNINE COLLINS: Faces "Lopez" Suit for Failing to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Francisco Lopez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Thirtynine Collins, LLC d/b/a Circa 39 Hotel,
Hans-Joachim Krause, Case No. 1:14-cv-22177 (S.D. Fla., June 12,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failing to pay
overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per seven-day work week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Thirtynine Collins, LLC d/b/a Circa 39 Hotel is a limited
liability company that regularly transacts business within Dade
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605,
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


TOWER CAFE: Faces Class Action Over Wage-and-Hour Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that former kitchen staff at Tower Cafe filed a class action
against their employer for alleged failure to give them duty-free
meal and rest breaks.

Workers also allege in a lawsuit filed in Sacramento County
Superior Court in May that records do not reflect actual hours
worked.  They are seeking more than $2 million in wages, penalties
and attorney's fees.

"Employers need to be wary of wage-and-hour policies, especially
in Sacramento," plaintiffs' lawyer Galen Shimoda --
attorney@shimodalaw.com -- said.  "Larger employers have mostly
come around, but medium and smaller companies are still violating
the law."

Mr. Shimoda has filed 10 wage-and-hour class actions since Jan. 1.
Jim Seyman, owner of the iconic Sacramento cafe, says he pays for
breaks taken by kitchen staff.

"I'm very, very disheartened by these accusations.  They are false
and have no merit whatsoever," Mr. Seyman said.  "I feel hostage
to a system that listens to a few disgruntled employees out of the
100 I have, none of which have complained."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jose Camacho, Jose Luis Mora
and an estimated 50 other hourly, non-exempt present and former
employees who worked Tower Cafe over the last four years.  Neither
Messrs. Camacho nor Mora are still employees at the cafe.
Mr. Camacho worked as a cook from September 2000 to August 2013.
Mr. Mora variously worked as a dishwasher, preparation cook and
cook during his tenure from October 2010 to October 2013.

From 2010 to 2012, plaintiffs allege in court documents,
management did not relieve them of all duty to take 30-minute meal
breaks and they did not require hourly employees to record these
30-minute meal breaks.  "Plaintiffs' time records do not show that
meal breaks were ever taken," the lawsuit states.

A new policy was adopted in 2012 in which employee time cards
automatically record a 30-minute meal period, regardless of
whether one was taken, plaintiffs allege.

"For lunch breaks, plaintiffs and similarly situated employees
were regularly required to clock out from the computer system to
indicate a 30-minute meal break even if they were not allowed to
take a full 30-minute meal period and thus worked through their
lunches," court documents allege.

"Employers still have to make meal and rest periods available,"
Mr. Shimoda said.  "This automatic deduction is pretty egregious."
Mr. Seyman says he's operated Tower Cafe for almost 25 years and
some employees have been there 15 to 20 years.

"One has to doubt these accusations," he said.  "It's a sad, sad
thing when a business is honest and this kind of thing happens,"
he said of the lawsuit.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in California Over Defective Power Lift Gates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annita Emerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., a California
corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04543 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for alleged defective power lift
gates in Toyota vehicles that fail to operate and costs thousands
of dollars to fix.

Toyota is the world's largest manufacturer of vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN AND MORGAN PA
      201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, 7TH FLOOR
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 233-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

           - and -

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


TRADER JOE'S: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Trader
Joe's of stiffing workers for overtime, in Superior Court in Los
Angeles.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Settles HIV/AIDS Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that United
Healthcare has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in which
consumers with HIV or AIDS claimed it discriminated against them
by forcing them to use its own in-house mail-order service instead
of local pharmacies.

Any current or future class member who is receiving HIV/AIDS
specialty medications through the program by mail may exercise his
or her right to opt-out of the program for specified reasons at
any time, using simple and expeditious methods to do so, according
to the May 29 settlement document.

United and its specialty pharmacy will establish and maintain a
unique and designated toll-free telephone number to handle calls
relating to the exemption process.

The dedicated phone line will be staffed by customer service
representatives who have completed at least two hours of training
in communicating with and assisting members, including training
with respect to HIV/AIDS issues and concerns and processing
members' exercise of their exemption right, according to the
settlement document.

United Healthcare will also promptly notify members who are not
currently class members but who have been diagnosed with HIV or
AIDS who are taking specialty medications about the exemption from
the program.

Class counsel filed a motion for payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses on May 29 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Class counsel requested nearly $1.15 million in attorneys fees and
$16,850.69 in litigation expenses.

The plaintiffs also requested the court approve an additional
payment of $10,000 per class representative "based on the effort
and sacrifices they have made, including risks to their privacy
and impact on health, for the benefit of all class members,"
according to the settlement document.

The plaintiffs claimed United Healthcare, OptumRX Inc., Pacificare
Life & Health Insurance Company and UnitedHealth Group forced
United enrollees to purchase their "specialty medications" to
treat HIV/Aids from its mail-order pharmacy, or pay thousands of
dollars or more each month for their medications.

As a result of the defendants' discriminatory behavior, HIV/AIDS
patients faced a "potentially life-threatening decision that also
threatens their privacy," the 2013 complaint stated.

HIV/AIDS patients were forced to forego essential counseling from
an expert pharmacist at a retail pharmacy and get their specialty
medications at United's mail-order pharmacy, they alleged.

The plaintiffs claimed California's Unruh Civil Rights Act barred
the type of discriminatory business activity United Healthcare was
engaging in.

The plaintiffs were represented by Harvey Rosenfield, Pamela
Pressley and Jerry Flanagan of Consumer Watchdog; and Alan M.
Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- Edith M. Kallas --
ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- and Kristin Libby --
klibby@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley Kallas.

The defendants were represented by Peter R. Bisio --
peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com -- and Dean Hansell --
dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells LLP.

A final hearing on the settlement will be held on July 14 before
District Judge David O. Carter.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 6:13-cv-00864


US VENTURE: "Savaglio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Savaglio, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
U.S. Venture Group, Inc., f/k/a Armenti Construction & Access
Systems, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80787 (S.D.
Fla., June 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

U.S. Venture Group, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Lake
Worth, Palm Beach, County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ernest Lozeau , Jr., Esq.
      WRIGHT PONSOLDT & LOZEAU
      1002 SE Monterey Commons Boulevard, Suite 100
      Stuart, FL 34996
      Telephone: (772) 286-5566
      Facsimile: 286-9102
      E-mail: llozeau@wpltrialattorneys.com


VENOCO INC: 2015 Trial Set in Lawsuit Over Marquez Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated suit over a merger transaction of Venoco,
Inc. and the then-Chairman and CEO of Venoco is expected to occur
in 2015, according to the company's May 20, 2014, Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 2) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2014.

In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, three lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2011 against
Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that
Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On
January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr.
Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco,
Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private
transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five
additional suits were filed in Delaware (three in January and two
in February) and three suits were filed in federal court in
Colorado (two in January and one in February) naming as defendants
Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in
Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in
which they requested that the court determine among other things
that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger
Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of
the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and
(ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the
class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as
a result of the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The
Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending
resolution of the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the
allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they
are without merit. Trial in this matter is expected to occur in
2015.


VISIONS CABARET: Faces "Miler" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Miler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Vision's, individually and d/b/a Visions and/or
d/b/a Visions Cabaret; and Minor Booth, Individually and d/b/a
Visions and/or Visions Cabaret, Case No. 4:14-cv-00351 (E.D. Ark.,
June 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the minimum wage and overtime requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Visions Cabaret is an adult entertainment club located at 7900
Bicentennial Road, North Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      Joshua Lee West, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 110
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
              west@sanfordlawfirm.com


WINNIPEG OLD: Recalls Meat Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Winnipeg Old Country Sausage Ltd.
Distribution:             Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8920

Winnipeg Old Country Sausage Ltd. is recalling meat products from
the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not declared
on the label.  People with an allergy to mustard should not
consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


YAZAKI CORP: Settles Auto-Parts Price-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
companies have agreed to settle their portion of a multidistrict
class action lawsuit in which auto part makers have been accused
of price-fixing.

On June 4, Yazaki Corp. and TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH agreed to
settle their portion of the suit, joining several other auto part
makers who have previously reached settlements with the class
members.

Yazaki and TRW were accused of conspiring with other auto part
manufactures to fix the price of occupant safety systems,
including seat belts, steering wheels and air bags, according to
the suit.

Yazaki and TRW have already paid millions of dollars in fees to
the U.S. Department of Justice.  Yazaki paid $470 million and TRW
paid $6 million.

The amount the companies will pay in the settlement has yet to be
disclosed, according to court documents.

On June 3, Autoliv Inc. agreed to pay $65 million to settle with
direct purchasers, auto dealers and consumers in the class action
lawsuit.

The U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into price-fixing
allegations, which was announced in 2010, has turned into the
largest criminal antitrust investigation ever conducted by the
agency.  The investigation has led to criminal charges against
dozens of companies.

The MDL class action was first filed in 2012.

The first settlement in the class action was reached by Nippon
Seiki in January.  The company agreed to pay $4.6 million in the
settlement.

Nippon Seiki had been investigated for its role in allegedly
conspiring to fix the prices of vehicle instrument panels.

In May, Lear Corp. agreed to pay $8.75 million to settle
allegations that it had conspired with other auto parts makers to
fix the prices of automotive wire harness systems.

The MDL class action is the first in a string of price-fixing
accusations brought against auto parts manufacturers.

In February, separate lawsuits were filed against Panasonic Corp.,
Hitachi Automotive Systems Inc. and Mitsuba Corp., alleging they
conspired to fix the prices of air flow meters, power window
motors, electronic throttle bodies, high-intensity discharge
ballasts, steering angle sensors, electronic-powered steering
assemblies and automatic transmission fluid warmers.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP; Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; Trump Alioto; Becnel
Law Firm; Gross Belsky Alonso; and Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &
Friedman LLP, among others.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Marianne O. Battani.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan-Southern
Division case number: 2:12-md-02311


ZIMMER INC: Recalls Versys Beaded Fullcoat Stem
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 3, 2014
Posting date:             June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40063

Recalled Products:

A) Versys Beaded Fullcoat Stem - Standard
B) Versys Beaded Fullcoat Stem - Offset
C) Versys Beaded Fullcoat Stem-Offset (LM)

Lot or serial number: 62554362/ 62496464

Model or catalog number: 00784301208/ 00-7843-013-26

Zimmer is initiating a recall of four (4) lots of various
configurations of the Versys Beaded Fullcoat Stems in Canada
because the devices could be composed of nonconforming material.
The raw material supplier commingled low-carbon cobalt-chrome
alloy into one specific heat treated lot of high-carbon cobalt-
chrome alloy.  These beaded hip stem forgings did not meet
material requirements.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Zimmer Inc.
                     1800 West Center Street
                     Warsaw
                     46580
                     Indiana
                     United States


ZIMMER INC: Recalls M/L Taper Reduced Neck Stems
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2014
Posting date:             June 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40067

Recalled Products:

  A) M/L Taper Reduced Neck Standard Stems
  B)  M/L Taper Reduced Neck Extended Offset
  C) M/L Taper with Kinectiv Stems
  D) M/L Taper Standard Stems
  E) M/L Taper Extended Offset Stems

Zimmer has received eleven (11) complaints over a six-year
timeframe that the sterile bag containing the implant contains a
black residue, now identified as a combination of the titanium
plasma spray used to create the porous surface of the implant and
polyethylene bag containing the implant within the sterile
package.  All complaints were related to product that has been
distributed through the loaner pool.  Zimmer is therefore
initiating a recall of m/l taper stems and m/l taper with Kinectiv
stems that are in the loaner pool, and is suspending provision of
these devices to the loaner pool.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Zimmer Inc.
                    1800 West Center Street
                    Warsaw 46580
                    Indiana
                    United States


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Fibro Exposure Led to Doctor's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holgate, writing for The Oxford Times, reported that a doctor
from Wallingford, in Oxfordshire, England, died after years of
exposure to asbestos when he was a medical student, a court heard.

Andrew Lawson, 55, who died from the cancer mesothelioma in
February, contracted the disease as a consequence of training at
Guy's Hospital, London, from 1976 to 1982.

Oxfordshire assistant coroner Peter Clark ruled that the father-
of-three died of the industrial disease.

Dr Lawson's wife, Juliet Lawson, 53, who is also a doctor, said in
a statement: "Andrew could not think of any significant source of
asbestos . . . except for the underground tunnels at Guy's."  She
said that after her husband, who lived at Thame Road, Wallingford,
was diagnosed with the inoperable disease in 2007, he was
contacted by a professor who had also worked at the hospital and
had contracted mesothelioma.

A statement made by Dr Lawson before his death was read out as
evidence at Oxfordshire Coroner's Court.  He said he was exposed
to asbestos-coated steam pipes in underground tunnels that
connected the medical school and the hospital.  He added: "There
were always people doing repairs.

"Typically, I would make three or four return trips each day."

Dr Lawson reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and
medical school in 2009, which included a confidentiality clause.

His solicitor, Andrew Morgan, told the Oxford Mail: "Dr Lawson is
one of a number of tragic cases for mesothelioma we have brought
on behalf of former medical and dental students. But we know there
are other cases across the country."

Calls have been made for more research into the issue.

Rebecca Lewington, 31, whose father Larrie Lewington died from
mesothelioma last October, after being exposed to asbestos while
working for Witney-based Kidlington Insulation in the 1970s, said:
"It's a horrible disease from which there's no coming back."

Miss Lewington, who lives in Eynsham, added: "There's got to be
more research being put into this, especially considering this is
a man-made disease. These people didn't need to die."

A spokeswoman for Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital said: "We didn't
accept liability at the time the claim was made. We are very sorry
to hear that Dr Lawson has died, and extend our condolences to his
family.

"The asbestos in the basement area concerned was removed in the
1990s."

After being diagnosed, Mr Lawson was forced to retire at the age
of 48 from his job as a consultant in anaesthesia and pain
management at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal to Proceed at Former Post Office
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Donald, writing for Belleville News-Democrat, reported
that the former Collinsville, Illinois, Post Office will need
asbestos removal before the city can construct its new parking
lot.

The City Council voted 4-1 to pay Envirotech Inc. $48,250 to
remove asbestos floor and ceiling tiles at the former post office
located across the street from City Hall.  The council had voted
to purchase the closed post office and demolish it for additional
parking near Collinsville's Main Street.

Uptown Director Leah Joyce said they didn't know originally
whether there would be asbestos in the building, but a pre-
construction survey confirmed the work would be necessary.

The asbestos removal could start as early as June 1, and must be
completed by June 18, Joyce said. Then the street department will
demolish the building, as they have done for condemned buildings
elsewhere in the city, she said.

If possible, Joyce said she would like to see the parking lot
completed and landscaped by Italian Fest in September. "That's our
goal," she said, pointing out the streetscape work and other
expansion and construction projects taking place this summer in
the Main Street district. "We're working as quickly as possible."

Councilwoman Karen Woolard was the sole no vote on the asbestos
contract. She said she believed that she needed to be consistent
in voting against the project, as she was the sole no vote in
April when the council approved the $250,000 post office purchase.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Exposed to Fibro During Lodge Renos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerrin Binnie, writing for ABC News, reported that an electrician
working at the Prime Minister's Canberra, Australia, residence has
been exposed to asbestos.

The Lodge was finished in 1927 and is currently being renovated to
replace the slate roof, rusty plumbing, wiring, and remove
asbestos.

The Department of Finance's Project Delivery Branch has been
giving evidence at a Budget estimates hearing.

The branch's assistant secretary Tooey Elliott said a "dangerous
incident" occurred while an electrician was working on the site.

"There has been fibrous asbestos in the sub-floor of the dining
room," Ms Tooey said.

"There had been an electrician pulling cables through there
previously which when we found out there was fibrous asbestos we
went back and found this electrician had, in the months
previously, been in that area."

Ms Elliott said there had been 11 other incidents where ComCare
had been notified because the safety of workers was compromised.
She told the hearing asbestos had been found in many parts of the
building, including the hot water pipes, electrical conduits,
sheeting in the attic and basement, in the laundry and in the wet
areas.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is lodging at accommodation for AFP
recruits when he stays overnight in Canberra until the renovations
are complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crew Removes Toxic Dust From Mo. Street Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Augustine, writing for KMBC.com, reported that workers
removed asbestos-contaminated soil from mostly-vacant property in
Kansas City, Missouri, that's been the scene of recent failed
commercial development initiatives.

Crews will have to do extensive cleanup on 79 of the 140 vacant
lots in the area along Prospect Avenue between 61st and 63rd
streets. The city said it plans to monitor the air quality on a
regular basis during the project.

Tests showed that the asbestos problem in the area wasn't as big
as city leaders first feared, and workers hope to finish the job
by September.

Once the project is finished and the State of Missouri signs off
on the work, Kansas City will begin an agreement with a commercial
real estate firm to try to restart commercial development in the
area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labour Criticizes Fibro Records
------------------------------------------------
Nicole Mathewson and Sarah-Jane O'Connor, writing for Stuff.co.nz,
reported that Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says
concerns about asbestos in Canterbury, New Zealand, homes have
spread "like wildfire", but all agencies are taking the issue
seriously.

One Christchurch homeowner says careless handling of asbestos
could have "given me and my husband a death sentence" and now
meant their home would be destroyed.  But Brownlee told Radio New
Zealand this morning about 100,000 homes received some form of
repair work following the quakes.

The fact WorkSafe New Zealand had needed to investigate only six
complaints about poor handling of asbestos showed the problem was
not typical of Christchurch's earthquake rebuild, he said.  He
acknowledged the public needed to feel confident about the issue,
but said the concerns had spread "like wildfire".

"Some of the concerns have been expressed quite emotively . . . so
of course people are concerned."

Brownlee said he had a meeting with the various agencies involved,
including WorkSafe, EQC and Fletcher.  He was "very encouraged" by
the relationship the agencies had with each other.

"Both Fletchers and EQC take take the issue of asbestos very
seriously. We don't believe there's anything to hide."

Any concerns about asbestos would be reported, Brownlee said.

'THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN US A DEATH SENTENCE'

Linda Boyce said Fletcher refused to test her stippled ceiling for
asbestos when its contractors began work on her Bexley house in
June 2012.

An email released to her under the Official Information Act, and
provided to The Press, stated Boyce's property was worked on
"before our policy of testing all potential asbestos sources".

An air test was later taken by Fletcher, and Boyce said she was
told the results showed only "pet hair" and no asbestos.  She and
husband had their own test taken in March this year, which found
the house was contaminated with asbestos.

"It's under the dishwasher, around the down lights, around the
ceiling, in the carpet . . . on the ground outside where they were
moving the stuff. It's all contaminated."

The decks at the back and front of their house had been "white
with dust" while the repairs were under way.

The house now needed to be demolished because the cost of removing
the asbestos was too much, Boyce said.

"They could have given me and my husband a death sentence. Our
house is destroyed and the stress it's caused is just huge.

"I just never ever thought this could happen in this country. It's
just disgusting."

The case had been under investigation by EQC for about a month,
and WorkSafe New Zealand began its own investigation.

"I'd describe our situation dealing with Fletcher as 10 times as
worse as the earthquakes, at least," Boyce said.

"I won't let this drop. They are going to take responsibility for
what they've done."

'WHY DID LANDLORD NOT TELL US?'

A New Brighton resident was concerned no-one told her the rental
she was living in had tested positive for asbestos until she asked
her landlord.

Roxanne, who did not want her last name used, was present when
workers took a sample from the damaged stipple ceiling in the
house about a year ago.  She did not find out the results of the
test until she asked her landlord about six months later.

"It's only because I asked the question that we found out. We
weren't volunteered the information."

Roxanne and her flatmate had since moved out of the house after
the landlord said he was going to sell it.

No repair work was carried out while they lived there, and the
house was still empty, she said.

Roxanne said she had no health issues at present, but wondered
what support would be available if asbestos was found to cause her
any problems in the future.

"They can't do anything about it, but . . . they've got to do more
than what they're doing," she said.

"We should have been told to actually get out of our place. It
should have been tested in that first year of the earthquake."

LABOUR CRITICISE POOR RECORDS

The Labour Party had earlier accused the Earthquake Commission of
keeping poor records about asbestos found in quake-damaged homes.

EQC estimated 40,000 Canterbury houses could potentially be
affected by asbestos, but mandatory testing for houses built
between 1940 and 1990 did not come into effect until mid-2012.

Labour earthquake spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the Government
needed to reassure Cantabrians and address their concerns about
asbestos.

The party obtained a briefing note from EQC to Earthquake Recovery
Minister Gerry Brownlee in May last year that showed the
commission was aware it had poor records for asbestos and no clear
strategy for testing.

In the note, provided to The Press, EQC admitted there were "not
always consistent practices and centralised record keeping about
identification, testing and repair strategies used when dealing
with asbestos".

"Accordingly, to date, it has not been possible for EQC to provide
precise information about the numbers of houses affected by
asbestos, total numbers tested or what the repair strategy was
used in each case," EQC said.

Cosgrove said: "It is incredible that no-one is able to say how
many damaged homes may have created exposure to asbestos and that
in some cases no processes were in place until last year."

Asbestos, a known carcinogen, can cause mesothelioma, a rare fatal
cancer of the lining of lungs or abdominal cavity, lung cancer,
asbestosis or scarring of lung tissue, and pleural plaques.

Canterbury District Health Board medical officer of health Dr
Alistair Humphrey said he believed the risk of people developing
asbestos-related health problems was low but that people needed
reassurance.

With Cantabrians already dealing with stress around earthquakes,
floods and house insurance, Humphrey said people did not need
further anxiety.

Because no register had been kept, Humphrey said it was not known
which households could have been exposed. He expected that there
would be testing for those people at the greatest risk but if
those tests came back negative "the rest of us can relax".

A spokesman for the earthquake repair programme said research
indicated the risk from working with asbestos containing materials
in repair work typically encountered in the Canterbury Home Repair
Programme was very low.

The repair programme had made changes over time to improve
asbestos monitoring.

"The programme was subject right from the start to the legal and
regulatory framework already in place," he said.

The spokesman said the standard of work was probably much better
than home renovators dealing with asbestos.

A Christchurch builder working for Fletcher EQR, who did not want
to be named, said regular builders were tasked with collecting
samples from damaged ceilings in the year or so after the quakes.

The job was now done by asbestos specialists but he was concerned
about how many builders and residents could have been exposed
during the period they had to collect the samples.

Although the "horse has bolted" and it was too late for those
already exposed, he felt efforts should be made to find out who
was potentially affected in case they developed symptoms in the
future and needed support.

"What annoys me with Fletcher is they know so much. We were caught
out by our own employer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Holdings Calls for Resuscitation of Mines
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarisai Mandizha, writing for News Day, reported that Turnall
Holdings Limited managing director John Jere has said Zimbabwe can
generate over $180 million as fresh money into the economy through
the resuscitation of asbestos mines in Shabanie and Mashaba.

The asbestos mining entity stopped operating in 2004 after the
government took over ownership of Shabanie and Mashaba Mines (SMM)
from Mutumwa Mawere.

Speaking at the official launch of the Zimbabwe chrysotile
asbestos position paper in Harare, Jere said the two mines had the
capacity to produce 180 000 metric tonnes of chrysotile asbestos
fibre and of this, 90% was exported.

"The country can realise about $180 million which could be the
fresh money coming into the economy if we resuscitate the mines,"
Jere said.

He said Turnall Holdings was currently spending a lot of money
through imports, and the money could have been used for other
things to boost the economy.

Jere said the Zimbabwe chrysotile asbestos position paper would
enable the country to engage the international community.
Industry and Commerce minister Mike Bimha said the asbestos
industry has huge potential to contribute to the country's socio-
economic development in line with the Zimbabwe Agenda for
Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (ZimAsset).

"Zimbabwe still has the potential to be one of the world's largest
producers of high quality chrysotile asbestos fibre and contribute
immensely to employment generation and the downstream industries,"
Bimha said.

"We look forward to our asbestos mines in Shabanie and Mashaba
running again. The resuscitation of the mines will significantly
cut on the asbestos fibre imports, create jobs at the mines and
downstream industries."

He said the chrysotile asbestos position paper was aimed at
telling the Zimbabwean story and defending the country's interests
regarding production, trading and safe use of chrysotile asbestos
and related products.

"As you may all be aware, the past two decades have witnessed
intense international lobby against the use of, and trade of
asbestos fibre. While the use of the blue amphibole type of
asbestos has been prohibited internationally, the white chrysotile
type which is produced in Zimbabwe has not been scientifically
condemned outright as a harmful substance if used in a controlled
manner," Bimha said.

He said the position paper was a product of wide consultation
between government, the private sector, asbestos industry and
labour under the auspices of the National Chrysotile Taskforce.

Bimha said chrysotile asbestos still remains in use in other
countries like China, Brazil, Russia and India.  He added that the
government will continue to lobby against the inclusion of
chrysotile asbestos in Annex of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior
Informed Consent (PIC), an international treaty that restricts
global trade in hazardous and dangerous chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Carolina to Pass Fibro Transparency Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that North Carolina's state Senate is currently sitting on a bill
that, if passed, would make the state the fourth in the nation to
enact an asbestos bankruptcy trust transparency law, joining
Wisconsin, Ohio and Oklahoma.

The North Carolina Commerce Protection Act of 2014, also called
Senate Bill 648, was introduced by senators Brent Jackson, Wesley
Meredith and Jim Davis in April 2013 and currently sits in the
state's Senate Judiciary.

According to a summary of the bill dated May 20, the bill aims at
making changes to the statutes governing commerce within the
state, including provisions that would create transparency in
asbestos bankruptcy trusts and the amendment of laws relating to
products liability actions.

Section four of the bill intends to enforce transparency in
asbestos trusts by requiring disclosures of all claims seeking a
settlement against a debtor's bankruptcy trust.

A bankruptcy trust is formed after a company emerges from Chapter
11 bankruptcy but maintains outstanding liability in personal
injury and wrongful death injuries allegedly resulting from
asbestos exposure. Those companies have the option of establishing
a trust to fund present and future asbestos claims.

The bill is intended to minimize potentially damaging
confidentiality and promote transparency. The bill would require
plaintiffs to file a sworn statement with the court within 30 days
after filing of a claim -- or after the bill becomes effective for
claims already filed -- identifying all other claims and potential
claims against asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

The court would then be required to wait at least 180 days after
the mandatory disclosure before scheduling a trial.

When a trial date is set, a defendant would be permitted to move
for an order requiring the plaintiff to file claims against
asbestos trusts that haven't already been identified in disclosure
documents but the defendant reasonably believes the plaintiff has
a sufficient case. This action must occur 75 days or more before
the trial date is set to begin.

The plaintiffs would then have 10 days to either file the
suggested claim or respond to the motion by explaining why there
is insufficient evidence to support filing a claim with the
specified asbestos trusts. If the court finds in favor of the
defendant, however, the plaintiff would be ordered to file the
claim.

Also, if the trial begins before a trust claim is resolved, the
bill explains that the court should assume that the plaintiff is
entitled to and will receive the compensation the claimant
requested in the trust document.

If a verdict is still rendered against the defendant, the bill
entitles the defendant to a setoff in the amount of any prior
recovery by the plaintiff from a trust in addition to the amount
of the compensation specified in the trust documents for any
unresolved claims against trusts.

Currently, most claims filed with asbestos bankruptcy trusts are
confidential and may allow claimants to delay filing claims until
after a claimant has recovered awards and settlements from solvent
defendants through lawsuits.

"As a result of asbestos manufacturers filing for bankruptcy and
creating bankruptcy trusts, there are fewer available defendants
for an injured party to pursue, and because of confidentiality
provisions and delayed claims, it is difficult for solvent
defendants to prove inconsistencies in the claims of an injured
party," the summary states.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges' recent ruling in the Garlock
Sealing Technologies case said he felt asbestos attorneys made
misrepresentations when simultaneously handling possible claims
against trusts and lawsuits against Garlock.

In his Jan. 10 opinion in the United State Bankruptcy Court
Western District of North Carolina, Hodges estimated Garlock's
liability at $125 million, meaning the gasket manufacturer would
be required to pay roughly $1 billion less than what
representatives of potential claimants requested be paid into the
asbestos bankruptcy trust.

When reaching his decision, Hodges said plaintiffs attorneys had
previously withheld exposure evidence in order to maximize
recovery against Garlock in civil court, thus inflating the costs
of judgments against and settlements with Garlock.

"In ordering the trust be funded with the lesser amount, the judge
noted that plaintiffs in prior lawsuits had failed numerous times
to disclose claims of plaintiffs against other defendants and
bankruptcy trusts, which had resulted in the plaintiff recovering
more than the value of the injury and the debtor paying more than
its share of the recovery," the summary states.

Senate Bill 648 also addresses proposed amendments to the laws
governing products liability actions, which could impact asbestos-
related lawsuits alleging product liability and design defects.

Sections six and seven of the bill would provide immunity from
liability as long as products comply with governmental
requirements.

Products would be granted immunity if they are designed or
manufactured in compliance with governmental approval and
requirements relevant to the risk allegedly causing harm. They
must also leave the care of the manufacturer or seller in
compliance with requirements without being altered.

However, immunity is revoked if products are sold after a
government agency withdraws, or recalls, the product from the
market or alters the requirements for the product to avoid injury.

Manufacturers or those selling an allegedly harmful product that
intentionally withhold or misrepresent information about their
products in order to gain government approval are also barred from
immunity.

According to the summary, current law does not provide absolute
defense to a product liability action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust from Fire Will Have Minimal Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Irby, writing for Central Queensland News, reported that
asbestos fibres measured around the site of the Boomerang Second
Hand store destroyed by fire indicate an acceptable level with
minimal risk, according to Workplace Health and Safety Queensland.

Reassuring North Mackay residents and business operators near
Harbour Road that the asbestos contamination risk was minimal, a
WHSQ spokesman said air quality was being monitored and showed the
concentration of asbestos fibres to be less than 0.01 fibres/ml.

"This is an acceptable level and poses minimal risk to residents
and nearby businesses from inhaling airborne asbestos fibres," he
said.

"Air monitoring will continue until the roof sheeting has been
removed.

"The area around Vines Creek is free from asbestos debris;
therefore the creek is unlikely to be contaminated from the
building damage."

The WHSQ spokesman said the building owner was responsible for the
management of onsite asbestos and ensuring site safety, and
ensured appropriate action has taken place to minimise the risk to
anyone working on the site, residents and nearby businesses.  He
said the workplace had a register that listed the location of
asbestos in the building, including the roof.

Despite government assurances, a Mackay asbestos expert claims
asbestos fibre contamination from the damaged warehouse is
ongoing; the fibres blowing off the untreated roof remnants.

Brought in by the business owner, Paul Bainbridge, the head of
Asbestos Removal Technology Jayson Maskell-Drew said code of
practice safety procedures, such as dampening down the asbestos
roof, were not being followed.

"The roof should be wetted down and (fibres) contained, but it is
not. They (fibres) are blowing around in the wind," Mr Maskell-
Drew said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Kingskerswell Head Teacher Died of Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Express reported that a well-respected former South Devon,
England, headteacher died from an asbestos related industrial
disease, an inquest has heard.

Kenneth Strong had been head teacher at Kingskerswell Primary
School between 1981 and 1993.  He died at Rowcroft Hospice,
Torquay, in January of malignant mesothelioma probably linked to
the six years he worked as a ships fitter/turner at Plymouth
dockyard, the Torbay and South Devon Coroner Ian Arrow recorded.

Mr Arrow heard Mr Strong, 81, had been born in Plymouth and left
school at 15 to work in the dockyard.

In a statement made before his death, Mr Strong said he had often
been on ships with asbestos lagged pipes and had seen crumbling
asbestos, dust and debris in the area. He had worked on HMS Eagle
and HMS Ark Royal among others.  He said in his statement he had
not had any protective clothing or mask or training on the dangers
of asbestos during his six years at the yard.  He had left to take
a teacher training course and worked at several schools across
Devon, he said in his statement.

He had collapsed last August and was then diagnosed. A post mortem
showed he had died from malignant mesothelioma, the inquest heard.

In his summing up Mr Arrow said the balance of probability was he
was exposed to asbestos early in his life, and probably that
exposure led him to develop the mesothelioma which subsequently
led to his death from the industrial disease.

He expressed his condolences to his family and said from what he
had learnt Mr Strong was obviously 'well liked and well
respected'.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Island Park Soil Tests Show More Toxic Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Cergol, writing for NBC New York, reported that authorities
said tests showed pesticides, toxic metals and petroleum products
in the soil of a Long Island, New York, park where asbestos had
already been detected, and warned anyone in contact with the
material "may have been put in jeopardy."

The Suffolk County district attorney has been probing several
sites on Long Island where toxic materials have been dumped.
Authorities have been trying to determine who is responsible.

The results were for the original three sites, Roberto Clemente
Park in Brentwood, a vacant lot in Central Islip and a row of
newly built homes for war veterans in Islandia.

At the park in Brentwood and lot in Central Islip, where asbestos
had already been found, officials said hazardous materials
including DDT, chlordane, arsenic, cobalt, lead and zinc were
detected in further testing.

No asbestos was found in the soil under the row of veterans homes,
the DA said, and results for the other contaminants are due.

The original site was Roberto Clemente Park in Brentwood, where
tens of thousands of tons of material were trucked in for a park
improvement project. Then, the vacant lot on Route 111 was
discovered and was "very similar in appearance" to what was found
at the park, DA Thomas Spota said.

At the Islandia location, the homes were sold to veterans of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The project broke ground last year and
veterans moved in about five months ago.

The group that built the homes, Long Island Builders Institute,
says the three sites are linked by the same contractor.

Authorities say all 107 parks in Islip are being examined for
contamination.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Overturns Convictions v. CES
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reported that a federal
appeals court cited prosecutorial misconduct when it overturned
criminal convictions against a Syracuse, New York, environmental
lab related to asbestos removal projects.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "impropriety
permeated the proceedings" in the 2011 trial of Certified
Environmental Service Inc. and three of its employees.

The court overturned the fraud and conspiracy convictions against
CES and two of its employees -- Nicole Copeland and Elisa Dunn --
partly because prosecutor Craig Benedict repeatedly tried to
improperly bolster the truthfulness of government witnesses.

The appeals court cited multiple instances of prosecutorial
misconduct, including frequent attempts to vouch for the
credibility of government witnesses, even after the judge told
Benedict not to do so.

Benedict declined to comment this morning. Executive Assistant
U.S. Attorney John Duncan also would not comment, except to say
his office is reviewing the decision.

A lawyer for CES, Daniel French, said the company and its
employees maintain they're innocent of the charges. The court
ruled they were denied a fair trial partly because of the
prosecutor's misconduct.

"One of the highest obligations prosecutors have is to try cases
fairly and within the rules," said French, a former U.S. attorney.
"That did not occur in this case."

The court also overturned the verdict because the presiding judge
in the trial, U.S. District Judge David Hurd, improperly
disallowed evidence that could have benefited the defense.

"Evidentiary errors and prosecutorial misconduct infected every
stage of the trial," the appeals court wrote. It ordered new
trials for three of the defendants, and ordered Hurd to resentence
two others.

A federal jury convicted CES of falsifying air and lab results,
enabling other companies to conduct illegal asbestos removal
operations for a decade. CES, of 1401 Erie Blvd. E., was convicted
on 15 counts, including conspiracy charges involving air-
monitoring and laboratory fraud.

CES was accused of falsifying air and lab samples, enabling
asbestos-removal companies to leave the cancer-causing material in
a dozen homes and businesses in the Syracuse area.

The sites included Syracuse University, Le Moyne College, the
Raymour & Flanagan furniture warehouse in Clay and the Roxboro
Road Elementary School in North Syracuse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers on Parliament Square Exposed to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that several construction workers on the $100
Parliament Square, in Tasmania, redevelopment in Hobart have been
told they have been exposed to asbestos.

WorkSafe Tasmania is part-way through investigating asbestos
removal practices on the demolition site and potential exposure to
the deadly fibres.

Its compliance director Neale Buchanan has written to three
construction workers who were engaged to remove the asbestos and
told them the investigating officer believes they were exposed
while using jack hammers.

Unions Tasmania's Kevin Harkins says he feels for the affected
workers.

"It's going to be something that will play on their minds and
their families' minds for some years to come, I'm sure," he said.

"Once we know what the report says and what the exposure levels
have been, all those sorts of facts and figures, then we'll be
able to make an assessment about what to do next.

"Hopefully WorkSafe Tasmania will make some recommendations about
what the best form of action is."

Mr Harkins also alleges workers who had complained about asbestos
were blacklisted.

About 20 unionists formed a picket line at the site over asbestos
concerns and held a small protest again this morning.

The developer Citta Property Group has declined to comment on the
asbestos investigation, but says it does not have a blacklist.

Demolition work began last August and the project will employ up
to 400 people during construction.

The square will include an office building, amphitheatre and
public open spaces.

Union fear glass contract will go offshore

Another union is concerned a major section of work will go to a
Chinese company.

Hobart Glass and Aluminium put in a quote of about $11 million for
the glass facade, but has been told by the preferred building
company it plans to get glass from China.

The Construction Union's Julian Cook says it would be
disappointing to see work on such an important development go
offshore.

"It is particularly hard because of the product that's coming from
overseas, local companies can't get a decent look in," he said.

"We got an opportunity here where this job can be fabricated
locally, and employ young people."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Fighting Fibro in Aging Station
-------------------------------------------------------------
WALB News Firefighters face danger on every call but
Donalsonville, Georgia, firefighters face danger in their station.
Mold and asbestos were found in several parts of the aging
station.

Leaders are working to fix the problem. When emergency vehicles
get rolling, the men and women that serve as fire fighters are
thinking about the folks in need of their assistance.

In order for these firefighters to save lives, their safety is
important as well.

"The city had 2 studies done to address the mold and asbestos
issues," said city manager Darrell Hampton.

Mold growth was found on surfaces inside the fire station. Ceiling
tiles were found discolored as well as walls. Mold spores were
found in the dining, sleeping and training area.

City manager Darrell Hampton says many of the issues are due to
the age of the building.

"Some of it is in tile, back in the 40's and 50's, we thought
asbestos was safe until we found out like lead paint that it was
not healthy."

Due to unsafe conditions firefighters aren't even allowed to use
the upstairs sleeping quarters, they're instead sleeping in a
camper at the back of the station.

The city promises that they are working towards finding permanent
solutions that will not jeopardize the health of those that
sacrifice so much of themselves.

"What we are looking at is a way to make sure that our
firefighters are safe, that they can do their jobs, protecting the
lives and the citizens of this community," said Hampton.

Hampton says money is the main issue in such a small community,
but the city isn't rolling over when it comes to making the
improvements needed so that firefighters can be ready to respond
when duty calls.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sutton Widow Appeals to Ex-Colleagues
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Murphy-Pyle, writing for Your Local Guardian, reported that
the wife of an illustrator who died froom asbestos-related cancer
has appealed for his former colleagues to come forward with
information about his working conditions.

Sutton, England, man Terry McCarthy died, aged 69, from
mesothelioma -- a type of cancer that attacks the lungs and is
associated with asbestos exposure -- in December last year after
10 months of battling the symptoms.  Now his grieving widow Linda
is trying to find out how he was exposed to the carcinogenic
material and is appealing to his former co-workers to come forward
with information.  She is seeking to secure coompensation from
whomever is responsible for his exposure.

Mr McCarthy wokred as a technical artist for technology company
Philipsm where his job involved taking home appliances back to his
office to draw illustrations of the parts.  Before his death he
told his wife the Philips factory, a centre known as "No 10
Building' based in a former hangar at the old Croydon Airport site
in Wallington, was notorious for asbestos dust.

Mrs McCarthy, 66, said: "When we were told Terry's diagnosis we
were absolutely devastated and couldn't believe he was facing an
incurable cancer through no fault of his own.

"He had chemotherapy but it made him feel worse and by October
last year he rapidly went downhill, it was very difficult to watch
and know nothing could be done.

"Terry had retired from Philips in 2003 and we hoped for a long
and happy retirement together.

"I am appealing to anyone who worked at Philips within the No 10
Building, or anyone who worked alongside Terry, to get in touch as
any information they have, no matter how small, could prove vital
in gaining justice for his death."

Mrs McCarthy has instructed experts at legal firm Irwin Mitchell
to investigate where and how he was exposed.

The firm's partner, Helen Ashton, said: "We are very keen to speak
with any of Mr McCarthy's former colleagues at Philips who may be
able to provide vital information about the presence of asbestos
within the factory and the working conditions employees faced.

"Companies have been well aware of the dangers of exposing staff
to asbestos since as far back as the 1950s and 60s so there is no
excuse for workers not to have been warned or protected."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UnionsWA Backs Fibro Compensation Review
---------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that unions have welcomed
a West Australian government move to widen the ability of victims
of asbestos-related illnesses and injuries to seek further
compensation.

Attorney-General Michael Mischin announced he had asked the
state's Law Reform Commission to launch an inquiry into
compensation for asbestos victims, including whether or not the
"once and for all ruler" applied to personal injury claims should
remain.

This would mean if a victim develops an injury or disease that
differs or is more serious than the one they have already received
compensation for, a court may be able to award further damages in
some circumstances.

UnionsWA secretary Meredith Hammat described the announcement as
"a welcome move".

"At present a victim of, for example, asbestosis who settled a
compensation claim many years ago, cannot return to the court if
another asbestos related disease such as mesothelioma subsequently
results in care and other needs as a result of asbestos exposure,"
she said.

"WA's laws are well below the standard of those elsewhere.

"WA had a long and highly profitable history of asbestos mining
that has left us with many suffering workers and their families."

But Ms Hammat said the WA government had recently failed to
support a private member's bill that would have made the
compensation process fairer.

"More years of indecision by government will mean victims will die
while they and their families go without care needs being properly
met," she said.

The WA Law Reform Commission will report back to Mr Mischin by
June 30 next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxicity Won't Diminish Over Time, Study Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the risk of
developing mesothelioma cancer after exposure never leaves or
subsides, regardless of how long you live, a new study shows.

The broad-based study that examined eight diverse patient groups
from Italy and Australia, including both occupational and
secondhand exposure, concluded the toxicity of asbestos within the
body never expires.

There is no decrease or decline in risk, said lead author Alison
Reid, Ph.D., Associate Professor at the School of Public Health,
Curtin University in Western Australia. She and six others penned
the study titled, "Mesothelioma Risk After 40 Years Since First
Exposure to Asbestos: A Pooled Analysis."

"We have always known that the risk of mesothelioma increases the
longer it is since you were first exposed," Reid told
Asbestos.com. "What the study has shown is that even after 45
years, there still is risk for developing the disease."

The typically long latency period (20-40 years) between asbestos
exposure and definitive symptoms has been well chronicled in the
past, but this is the first significant study detailing the
indefinite risk of developing the cancer.

No One Outlives the Risk

"No one survives long enough for the excess risk to disappear,"
the authors concluded in their analysis published in Thorax, one
of the leading respiratory medical journals in the world. The
study included 862 mesothelioma cases from more than 22,000 people
who were exposed.

It's an unsettling prospect for those who were exposed, knowing
they are unlikely to outlive the risk of developing this rare
cancer, which is diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 people annually
in the U.S.

It helps to explain why the number of mesothelioma patients lately
has remained steady each year, despite the dramatic drop in the
use of asbestos materials during the last three decades. Those
exposed in the '60s and '70s -- at the height of the asbestos
building boom in America -- remain very much at risk today.

The collapse of the World Trade Center in the 2001 terrorist
attack released an estimated 2,000 tons of pulverized asbestos in
the air. Thousands of people in New York City who survived 9/11,
despite that thick cloud of asbestos dust that engulfed them on
that day, must live with the fact that their long-term risk for
mesothelioma will never disappear.

No amount of asbestos exposure is considered safe.

Mesothelioma starts with the inhalation or ingestion of
microscopic asbestos fibers, which can become lodged in the thin
protective lining that covers the lungs, abdomen and heart. Those
fibers can inflame or irritate the mesothelial cells within the
lining, starting a slow chain reaction of metabolic and physical
changes that can eventually lead to mesothelioma.

Proof Is in the Numbers

The study found that 44 percent of the pleural mesothelioma cases
and 54 percent of the peritoneal mesothelioma cases were diagnosed
at least 40 years after a first exposure.  There was a stunning
13.3 percent and 23.2 percent of pleural and peritoneal cases,
respectively, found after 50 years. The median time from first
exposure to diagnosis was 38.4 years for pleural.

"The rate and risk of pleural mesothelioma increased until 45
years following first exposure and then appeared to increase at a
slower power of time since first exposure," the authors wrote in
the report. The rate of peritoneal over the 10-50 years since
first exposure continued to increase.

One of the original goals of the study was to determine if the
risk of developing mesothelioma decreased after 40 years from
first exposure. The answer was a resounding no.

"For peritoneal mesothelioma, we didn't find any such slowing
down," Reid said. "Instead, the risk continued to increase."

Participants from the study came from six previous occupational
group studies, one from a general environmental exposure study,
and one from a study of stay-at-home, nonworking wives where were
exposed through spouses who worked with asbestos.

The source of asbestos exposure included an amosite factory, an
asbestos cement factory, an asbestos mine and an asbestos mill,
along with environmental and railway stock exposure. The types of
asbestos they were exposed to included crocidolite, amosite and
chrysotile.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Proposes $275-Mil. to End Bankruptcy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daneman, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that
nearly four years into its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Garlock Sealing
Technologies Inc. has started the paperwork to get out of it.

The Palmyra maker of industrial gaskets and seals filed a proposed
reorganization plan with U.S. Bankruptcy Court. That 347-page
document spells out how the company proposes to wrap up all the
myriad asbestos-related personal-injury claims that caused it to
file for bankruptcy in June 2010.

The Wayne County company, as well as parent company EnPro
Industries, are proposing a $275 million trust fund, split over
two accounts, to handle any current and future claims against
Garlock.

However, EnPro executives acknowledge, don't look for the plan to
come to fruition anytime soon.

"The representatives of claimants will no doubt file significant
paperwork with the court, making plan objections," retired EnPro
general counsel Rick Magee said in a conference call. "There will
be a flurry of that kind of activity over the next couple months."

And even if the court confirms the Garlock plan, it will be
subject to appeals, Magee said. Minus a consensual plan worked out
with the bankruptcy committee representing asbestos injury
claimants and their attorneys -- something Garlock and EnPro
haven't been able to work out -- the end of Garlock's bankruptcy
"is not months, it's probably years," Magee said.

Magee has been working as a consultant for EnPro on the Garlock
asbestos claims resolution.

The $275 million is far less than the $1 billion-plus that had
been sought by a pair of bankruptcy committees of attorneys
representing plaintiffs or future plaintiffs against Garlock. The
company scored a major legal victory in January when U.S
Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges ruled that Garlock's liability
for any current and future asbestos-related mesothelioma lawsuits
was at most $125 million. The $275 million fund is intended to
cover any suits claiming mesothelioma caused by exposure to
asbestos in Garlock products, as well as any other health-related
claims.

Garlock's bankruptcy in recent months has attracted the attention
of numerous major corporations also in the asbestos-related injury
space. That attention came as Hodges' January ruling indicated the
company had shown substantial proof of widespread fraud by
plaintiffs and their attorneys -- for example, claiming their lung
damage could only have come from exposure to Garlock products, but
then filing similar claims against other manufacturers.

In recent weeks, businesses ranging from insurance giant Aetna
Inc. to manufacturers Ford Motor Co., Honeywell International
Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America all have received access to
that proof, which previously had been sealed by the court.

"We're not trying to change the world," EnPro CEO Stephen E.
Macadam said. "We're not trying to make some huge public
statement. We're just trying to get the right deal for Garlock and
get on with our lives."

Magee said Garlock's proposed fund was structured with safeguards
to prevent possible abuses, such as requirements that claimants
provide any evidence about claims of asbestos exposure elsewhere,
and the ability of the trust fund's independent trustee to audit
and double-check those claims.

A person who likely could not have been exposed to asbestos except
through Garlock products "is entitled to a significant payment,
depending on age and marital status and all those kinds of
things," Magee said. "If, on the other hand, a claimant has dozens
of trust claims, lots of other exposures, that claimant is not
entitled to a significant payment. That's how the settlement
facility works."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Adopts Recommendation on Defendant Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that asbestos Multidistrict Litigation Judge Eduardo Robreno has
adopted a recommendation, granting shipowner defendants' motion to
dismiss based on untimely, unspecific green cards.

On May 12, Robreno adopted the report and recommendation proposed
by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Hey in MDL docket 875 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
granting in part and denying in part specific shipowner
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Robreno granted the shipowner defendants' motions to dismiss where
the plaintiffs failed to provide green cards specifically
pertaining to certain defendants. However, he denied shipowner
defendants' motions to dismiss where plaintiffs did provide
specific green cards despite serving the defendants after the 120-
day service of process deadline.

Citing the Bartel decision, Hey wrote that the MDL court held that
service of process was proper under Ohio law if the plaintiffs
could provide sufficient evidence verifying and confirming the
defendant received notice of the pending action.  The court also
concluded that a signed returned green card from the defendant was
sufficient proof that the defendant received the original process
papers.

As a result, Hey was directed to oversee the process of allowing
the defendants to challenge the "authenticity and genuineness" of
the green cards produced by the plaintiffs.  Therefore, Hey
ordered the plaintiffs involved in shipowner cases to provide
defendants with copies of the certified green cards in October.

The defendants responded on Dec. 16, challenging the authenticity
and genuineness of the green cards. They alleged the plaintiffs'
green cards did not evidence service and argued the cases should
be dismissed.

Then on March 19, Hey issued a report and recommendation
suggesting the defendants' motions be granted in part and denied
in part.  Hey recommended the motions be denied for defendants who
were specifically provided green cards and the motions be granted
-- thus dismissing the defendants -- for cases where the plaintiff
failed to provide green cards to specific defendants.

The defendants objected to Hey's recommendation on April 2,
arguing the plaintiffs' green cards do not satisfy their burden of
establishing service upon the defendants.

However, Hey found that this argument was explicitly rejected in
the Bartel decision and chose not to revisit to issue.  They
further contended that the plaintiffs' evidence is unreliable and
not verifiable, arguing that internal database printouts and
affidavits submitted in connection to the green cards cannot be
relied upon.

The "defendants state that 'there is no way to verify the
information presented, or to confirm that the 'green card' shown
on the page does in fact pertain to service of the complaint for
the plaintiff listed or started,'" the recommendation states.

The court disagreed. Hey stated that the plaintiffs produced the
green cards, which sufficiently satisfied their burden of proving
service of process.

The defendants also argued service should not be extended when the
plaintiffs failed to serve the defendant within 120 days of filing
a complaint. They claim 'good cause' does not exist, thus service
deadlines should not be extended.

Hey wrote in her recommendation that according to the Rules of
Procedure, the court must dismiss an action without prejudice if a
defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is
filed.  However, if a plaintiff can prove good cause for the
failure, then the court must extend the service time allotted.
Hey added that the Third Circuit "interpreted this rule to mean
that, even without good cause, the court can, in its discretion,
provide additional time to cure rather than dismiss the
defendants."

The plaintiffs do not argue that the defendants were untimely
served, but they assert there will be no prejudice if the court
allows them to cure the defect.  Because the plaintiffs provided
green cards for the cases, the court concluded that any defect
relating to untimely service could be cured by an extended
timeframe.

Therefore, Hey recommended denying the defendants' motion to
dismiss in cases where the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence
of service of process by green card to each defendant.  Hey also
recommended the court to make no ruling on cases governed by
Michigan law, meaning those defendants' motions to dismiss are
still pending.

In his adoption of the recommendation, Robreno also granted the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regulators Say County Must Clean Up Dump Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Alabama state regulators say
Limestone County must clean up an unauthorized dump site.

WAAY-TV reports that the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management never issued a permit for the dump site.  A letter from
the department says the Limestone County Commission contributed to
the dump site's creation and orders that it to be cleaned up.

ADEM spokesman Scott Hughes says that the department is still
investigating the materials at the site for asbestos. The material
largely came from a shopping center demolition project, and
neighbors told the television station that it has been burning for
several weeks.

Limestone County Commission Chairman Stanley Menefee says he
received the ADEM letter and will work with the county engineer to
comply.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Building Demolition Planned in Hannibal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Henley, writing for Hannibal Courier-Post, reported that
another building in the 200 block of Broadway in Hannibal,
Missouri, is ticketed for demolition, but this time it's the
building's owner, rather than the city, who is spearheading the
work.

Earlier this year 213 Broadway was torn down. Next to come down
will be 227-229 Broadway.

"It has some pretty severe structural problems in it and the owner
has decided instead of fixing it to go ahead and take it down,"
said Joey Burnham, city building inspector.

According to Burnham, the building is owned by John Briscoe, who
has made arrangements to have the three-story structure at Third
and Broadway razed.

The condition of the building took a turn for the worse this
spring, reports Burnham.

"Maybe a year ago we saw a crack on the back of the building, but
it wasn't severe, just a big crack like most of these old brick
buildings get," he said. "About a month ago some bricks actually
fell off the front of the building and when we were looking at
that, we went around to the rest of it and we noticed the crack
had gotten a lot larger. We went in and looked at it and it has
some severe structural problems on the back side of the building.
It would cost more to repair the building than it would to
demolish it."

While empty now, the building had served as the home of Plowman &
Associates Realtors for decades.

"Since Sue Giroux moved out the building is not being used," said
Burnham. "She had been there for like 30 years."

Plowman is now located at 2309 Broadway

The Chocolate House Recording Studio had at one time operated in
the 229 storefront.

According to Burnham, the building's upper floors have not been
utilized in years.

"It's in really bad shape upstairs," he said.

At the May 6 meeting of the Hannibal Building Commission,
Councilman Barry Louderman requested that barricades be put up out
of concern over the southwest corner of the building.

"I'm afraid it will be in Third Street," said Louderman of the
structure.

Briscoe has complied with the city's request and has put up
barrels along the Third Street sidewalk.

The city has not set any deadlines regarding the work.

"We didn't give him a time line," said Burnham. "We sent them a
letter about a month ago and they have been making progress on it.
They're in communication with this department. I don't know when
they'll start, but it will be pretty soon."

Burnham suggested that the removal of asbestos from the structure
could be a reason the demolition has not yet begun.

"They've had the asbestos inspection. If there's asbestos in it,
whenever they get that abated then they'll begin demolition of the
building," he said.

The city permits necessary to undertake a demolition had not yet
been secured.

"They won't do that (get the permits) until they know exactly when
they're going to start," said Burnham.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Fibro Case Adjourned
-------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand reported that a court application from Worksafe
seeking more time to investigate the way Fletcher EQR has been
dealing with possible exposure to asbestos fibres has been
adjourned.

A specially-created unit of Fletcher Construction, Fletcher EQR is
repairing most of the earthquake-damaged homes in Christchurch for
the Earthquake Commission.

Worksafe health and safety investigators have already looked at
five cases but have so far decided not to lay any charges.

The hearing at the Christchurch District Court was suppressed and
finally adjourned so a further hearing could be held on matters of
law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FACT Act "Clips Wings of Plaintiffs Bar"
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that despite strong opposition, supporters of the Furthering
Asbestos Transparency Act believe that U.S. Senator Jeff Flake's
introduction of the bill in the Senate could reignite interest in
the FACT Act.

Mark Behrens, a defense attorney with the Shook, Hardy & Bacon law
firm, said the bill "is a helpful step towards building momentum
for federal asbestos transparency legislation and may spark
additional interest in the topic."

Darren McKinney, Director of Communications with the American Tort
Reform Association, said he finds it encouraging that a senator
would take a cue from the House and introduce a bill designed to
encourage litigation reform in one of the nation's largest tort
systems.

"The efforts to lie, manipulate and orchestrate are obvious,"
McKinney said of what he feels is fraud surrounding asbestos
bankruptcy trusts.

Flake, R-Ariz., introduced the bill in the Senate, officially
titled S. 2319, six months after the U.S. House of Representatives
passed its version of the FACT Act.

The bill seeks to amend title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code, requiring public disclosure by asbestos bankruptcy
settlement trusts according to section 524(g) of the title.

If passed, the bill would require asbestos bankruptcy trusts to
release information on those seeking compensation due to asbestos
exposure in quarterly reports, including detailed information
regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for asbestos-
related injuries.

The bill would also require the quarterly reports to be made on
the court's public docket, specifically disclosing the names,
exposure history and basis for any payment from the trust of those
who have filed a claim with each trust.

The Senate bill is identical to the companion House bill,
officially titled H.R. 982.

H.R. 982 was introduced by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, on
March 6, 2013 and was passed in a 221-199 vote on Nov. 13. The
vote remained mostly on the party line as only five Democrats
voted for the Act. It was then sent to the Senate for approval.

Calling the Senate bill a positive step, Behrens added that
"passage of the FACT Act will promote honesty in litigation and
help juries reach fully informed decisions about who is
responsible for a plaintiff's injury."

McKinney said that he understands people are going to make
mistakes because it has been decades since their alleged asbestos
exposure, but their stories and provided evidence should line up
with each claim.

"If you plan on filing a lawsuit in one jurisdiction and then
making a bankruptcy claim, you ought to be telling the same story
to the best of your recollection," he said.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) released a letter in November written by
William Samuel, Director of the Government Affairs Department,
that expressed strong opposition to the House version of the FACT
Act. The AFL-CIO confirmed in an email that its oppositions to the
House bill also apply to the Senate bill.

In his letter, Samuel agreed that the bankruptcy system intended
to compensate asbestos disease victims is problematic with its
delays, "inadequate" compensation and increased payments to
lawyers.

"But [the FACT Act] does nothing to improve compensation for
asbestos victims and would in fact make the situation even worse,"
Samuel wrote. "In our view, the bill is simply an effort by
asbestos manufacturers who still are subject to asbestos lawsuits
to avoid liability for diseases caused by exposure to their
products."

The FACT Act also attempts to protect claimants' privacy by
prohibiting disclosure of their confidential medical records and
full social security numbers.

However, Peg Seminario, Safety and Health Director with AFL-CIO,
said the bill further "victimizes" the asbestos claimants and
still violates their privacy.

"Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have suffered
or died from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos," Seminario
stated. "For years, companies hid the dangers of this deadly
killer and denied victims any compensation."

"Now the Chamber of Commerce and other employers are pushing
legislation -- the FACT Act -- which would further victimize these
workers by invading their privacy and posting their exposure
history and disease compensation claims on the web, giving
unfettered access to victim's personal information," she
continued. "These are the same organizations that have opposed
virtually every workplace safety and health measure to protect
workers, including tougher workplace standards for asbestos and
silica."

Legal Newsline is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform.

In Samuel's letter, he agreed that the bill would only serve as an
invasion of privacy and that claim disclosure would put a burden
on trusts, delaying "much-needed" compensation.

"Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of
individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly asbestos
diseases, not further victimizing them by invading their privacy
and subjecting them to potential blacklisting and discrimination,"
Samuel wrote.

Despite opposition, supporters of the FACT Act argue that U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges' decision in the Garlock Sealing
Technologies case exemplifies why transparency is needed.

Not long after the FACT Act was passed in the House, Hodges, of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Western District of North
Carolina, ruled that asbestos plaintiffs' attorneys have been
withholding evidence while pursuing claims against Garlock, a
gasket manufacturer.

On Jan. 10, Hodges ordered that the amount sufficient to satisfy
the company's asbestos liability is $125 million, roughly $1
billion less than what plaintiffs' representatives felt was
proper.

During the bankruptcy trial, Garlock brought evidence to the
hearing demonstrating that the last 10 years of its participation
in the asbestos litigation system "was infected by the
manipulation of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their
lawyers."

"Since the House passed its version [of the FACT Act], the Garlock
decision by the federal bankruptcy judge in Charlotte reinforces
the need for transparency legislation at the federal level,"
Behrens said of the fraud.

McKinney agreed that the bill could "turn up a little heat" on the
need for transparency, but is discouraged that it is enough for
the Senate to pass the bill.

McKinney added that although he and other FACT Act supporters
would like to see the bill passed, it is unlikely as long as the
Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party -- especially in an
election year.

Calling the FACT Act a bill that "clips the wings of the
plaintiffs bar," McKinney said that as long as the plaintiffs bar
is one of the most consistently generous campaign contributors,
bills that the lawsuit industry doesn't support regrettably will
not reach the Senate floor.

"As far as they see it, they need campaign contributions from
wealthy plaintiffs' lawyers and law firms if they are going to be
competitive," McKinney said.

"These guys know who's buttering their bread," McKinney added.
"And I can't imagine for the life of me that they will alienate
those who butter their bread."

All requests seeking comments from plaintiffs' attorneys went
unanswered.

McKinney said he wasn't surprised plaintiffs' attorneys refused to
comment because they "didn't want to be quoted defending fraud,"
adding that opposition to the FACT Act boils down to defending
fraud.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edinburgh Brothers Stricken by Toxic Dust
----------------------------------------------------------
Dailyrecord.co.uk reported that Jack and Bob McIlwain, who died
from shotgun wounds in a supposed suicide pact, both suffered from
a severe lung condition caused by exposure to asbestos.

Two English elderly brothers who died in a suicide pact asked
neighbours to witness their wills in the days before they took
their lives.

Jack and Bob McIlwain are said to have suffered severely from
pulmonary fibrosis after being exposed to asbestos.

Neighbours said Bob, 73, had become frail recently and started
using his brother's mobility scooter.  He had been caring for 71-
year-old Jack.

Police raced to their house in Edinburgh after a phone call from
one of them claiming he was going to kill himself.

The bodies of the men were found slumped on a firearm, with
gunshot wounds to the stomach, in Lockerby Cottages, Gracemount.
The property is owned by the Lockerby Trust charity for
"distressed gentlefolk who had fallen on hard times".

Anne Parker, 83, who lived next door, said: "They had planned it.
They had no family and they had asked around to see if we could
witness them signing their will a few weeks ago.

"My husband Frank was to do it but it was not ready on time.

"There was no evil in them. I can only imagine it was done out of
love."

A police insider denied one brother had shot the other, insisting
it was a double suicide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Crews Called to Garage Fire in Northbourne
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reported that firefighters were called to a garage fire
at a house in Pinewood Road, Northbourne, in England.  Two crews
of firefighters from Redhill and Springbourne attended, with four
firefighters wearing breathing apparatus and using one hose reel
jet to extinguish the fire.  The fire involved the roof, which is
believed to be asbestos and the content of the garage was
destroyed by fire.  It is believed to have been started by an
electrical fault in the freezer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Reopening of Tyne Pedestrian Tunnel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that the planned reopening of the Tyne, England,
pedestrian and cycle tunnel has been further delayed so dangerous
asbestos can be removed.

The Grade II-listed structure, which connects Howdon and Jarrow,
closed for a GBP4.9m refurbishment in May 2013 and was due to
reopen this summer.

But after asbestos levels were found to be higher than expected,
it will not now reopen until at least June 2015.

A free shuttle bus will continue to operate during the closure.

Project director Paul Fenwick said: "Once we decided to fully
address the asbestos and corrosion issues, we believed the works
could be completed by February or March.

"When the bids came back from prospective specialist contractors
it became obvious that the works would take longer than we had
originally hoped.

"The alternative transport measures we put in place have proved
highly successful and will continue until the tunnels reopen."

One of the features of the refurbishment will be the replacement
of two of the original wooden-step escalators with inclined lifts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auburn Theater Owners Eye Fibro Project
--------------------------------------------------------
David Wilcox, writing for Auburnpub.com, reported that the
historic Auburn Schine Theater on South Street, in New York, has
new words on its marquee -- but that may just be the beginning.

New partnerships between building owners the Cayuga County Arts
Council and Bouley Enterprises and Beardsley Design Associates
have reinvigorated the theater project, council board member
Collin Sullivan said.

Led by new project manager Todd Coleman, of Bouley, the parties
have established a first phase of action to restore and reopen the
1938 theater that focuses mostly on asbestos removal, with some
marquee renovation also possible.

What work can be done this year is subject to state grants, which
the council will apply for this summer and potentially be awarded
in the fall.

Only recently was the full extent of the theater's asbestos
contamination assessed, Sullivan said, through a Brownfield-funded
study conducted by the city, as well as a Beardsley evaluation in
April, he said.

"The finishes are falling down because of the deterioration, and
what that does is, because you have asbestos on pipes around the
building, it has settled on the ground and it moves around the
air," said Beardsley Project Manager Edward Onori. "So it just
kind of moves through the building."

With its new-found grasp of the obstacles before them, the council
is eager to update the public on its progress with the Schine,
Sullivan said. Coleman and council members have been more active
outside the theater in recent weeks, placing lettering on new
marquee plating and project information in the poster cases, whose
silver trim has also been repainted.

A public information session will be hosted at Swaby's, where the
council board will likely field many of the same questions they
had when they began their terms in 2010, Sullivan said. Thanks in
large part to Bouley and Beardsley -- as well as Coleman, who
translates the architectural reports for the council -- those
questions can now be answered, Sullivan said.

"Anybody can look and say, 'OK, you have a big problem and you
need a lot of money,'" he said. "You need the expert to say, 'OK,
you need the money to do this and this, and then you can do that'
-- to put it all into perspective and help us wrap our heads
around how to deal with it."

After the asbestos comes the rest of the Schines Theater. A
Crawford & Stearns building condition survey conducted in December
-- funded by a Technical Assistance Grant from the Preservation
League of New York State -- found that on the whole, the building
is structurally in good shape, Sullivan said.

Thus the marquee and masonry are next in line for improvement. The
council is hopeful they receive enough grant funding this year to
also support the marquee's rejuvenation and the restoration of
some deteriorating brick. Onori said both projects will shield the
theater from the elements, preventing future problems. But the
work will also have symbolic benefits, Sullivan said.

"We want to do something that people can see and take pride in,
and get them excited like we're excited," Sullivan said. "Make the
place look like a theater that just needs a little help, and it'll
be ready to open."

Because the question marks surrounding the project have previously
resulted in unmet expectations and disappointment, Sullivan is
reluctant to place a timetable or a dollar amount on the theater's
full restoration. As for this year's state grant process, he said
a $1 million award package would be the best-case scenario. And
the worst case wouldn't stop the theater's resurrection -- just
slow it, he said.

"This is all going to be done," he said. "It all depends on what
the funding is."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cuyahoga County to Sue Over Ameritrust Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sheil, writing for Fox8.com, reported that Cuyahoga County,
in Ohio, was slated to announce that it is suing 10 defendants
regarding the ill-fated purchase of the Ameritrust Tower that
wound up costing taxpayers about $18 million.

The county says the suit will cover several areas, including an
asbestos removal contract.

In 2007, the FOX 8 I-Team broke the story of a federal corruption
probe of the old county government with an investigation into that
contract.

Our investigation focused on why the county would pass up the
lowest bidder, who had a 100 percent surety bond on its work. It
instead chose a local company for the job, a decision that cost
taxpayers nearly a million dollars more to get the same work done.

"We've been looking at this for a while," new County Executive Ed
FitzGerald told us back in 2012, "and your station has been
looking at it for a long time, and with good reason."

In addition to the asbestos contract, the county plans to sue
Vince Russo, son of former county Auditor Frank Russo.

Both father and son pleaded guilty in the FBI's corruption probe
and went to prison.
The county says it plans to sue Jones Lang LaSalle Great Lakes
Corporate Real Estate Partners, LLC, who use to do business under
the name "The Staubach Company -- Great Lakes Region."

Staubach was paid a $3 million fee as a real estate consultant on
the deal.

One of the attorneys who represented the company locally, Anthony
Calabrese III, later pleaded guilty in the corruption probe on
bribery charges.

In the past, Staubach officials have denied any wrongdoing. The
company recommended the county lease the space, not buy the
Ameritrust complex as it ultimately did.

County Executive Ed FitzGerald came into office after voters chose
to change the county's form of government in the wake of the
scandal.

The new county administration says the Ameritrust deal "helped
prompt an FBI (corruption) probe" that ultimately sent dozens of
people, including former county commission Jimmy Dimora, to
prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Council of Trade Unions Calls for Fibro Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand reported that the Council of Trade Unions is
calling for a ban on the import of asbestos.

Australia, Britain and the European Union have all banned any
importation of asbestos but New Zealand so far has only banned raw
asbestos.

Asbestos exposure is the biggest cause of work-related deaths.
CTU policy director Bill Rosenberg said the Government is working
on new regulations -- but not urgently enough.

"We should have a declared policy on getting rid of all asbestos
in buildings by the year 2030, we should actually have a plan to
do this, rather than just hoping it will happen."

Mr Rosenberg said new regulations should be introduced as soon as
possible.

But the Building Industry Federation believes an import ban on
asbestos would have little effect on its members' business.

Chief executive Bruce Kohn said asbestos is a product of the past
and was commonly used as a decorative ceiling spray. He said there
is nothing to suggest that it is being used now.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment says current
regulations are good enough to deal with asbestos in the short-
term. New regulations are part of the Health and Safety at Work
Bill which is open for public consultation until 18 July.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dust Led to Death of 74-Year Old
-------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Jones, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a
pensioner who was exposed to asbestos while working for two
different firms informed his own inquest about his contact with
the deadly dust.

Before his death, Norman Berry put together a statement about how
he regularly inhaled asbestos and his recollections of "plumes of
dust" in the atmosphere where he worked.

The 74-year-old had been diagnosed with a malignant mesothelioma
-- an asbestos-related cancer -- and was admitted to the Royal
Derby Hospital in April this year with respiratory problems.  When
Mr Berry, of Holborn View, Codnor, died, the mesothelioma was
recorded as the cause of death.  At the inquest into his death,
coroner Dr Robert Hunter said: "We know Mr Berry was exposed to
asbestos fibres and he was quite graphic in his statement."

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard that Mr Berry was
born in Ashton under Lyne, near Manchester, and worked for a
painting contractor after leaving school.

In his statement, read out in the hearing, he said he would do
painting work in mills across Derbyshire and Lancashire and would
spend time in boiler houses. He said the lagging on the pipework,
which he would be required to paint, would include asbestos and
"fibres could be seen coming off the pipework".

Mr Berry worked for the firm from 1961 until 1967 before moving
jobs.

In 1972, he joined Derbyshire building company Vic Hallam Ltd and
worked at both the firm's Eastwood and Langley Mill sites.

In his statement, he said he was exposed to asbestos when working
overtime and weekends at Langley Mill.

He said: "I did not work every weekend at Langley Mill -- I did
work about 30 times in two years."

Mr Berry said he would be required to do sweeping and cleaning in
the cutting shop, where asbestos sheets were cut into manageable
pieces.  He said he would pick up off-cuts and sheeting and throw
them into a wheelbarrow, as well as sweeping up the dust and
debris

Mr Berry said: "It would cause plumes of dust to go into the air
and it would go all over my hands, hair, face and clothing.

"At the time, myself and my colleagues were not aware of the
dangers of asbestos and did not give any thought to the handling
of asbestos."

Mr Berry said he did not recall being exposed to asbestos at any
other point in his career.

Dr Hunter recorded a conclusion that Mr Berry died as the result
of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Deadly Dust from Navy Ships Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that a
specialist company has started removing asbestos from two Naval
Service ships which have been locked down for a number of weeks
due to the discovery of the potentially lethal substance onboard.

A Naval Service spokeswoman confirmed to the Irish Examiner that
"a deep environmental clean" is now underway on the LE Ciara and
LE Orla.

The spokeswoman said the clean-up is expected to take a number of
weeks and on its completion "an independent asbestos consultancy
company will carry out air monitoring and analysis" to ensure the
vessels are safe to be reoccupied by navy personnel in accordance
with Health and Safety Authority guidelines.

Both ships are currently tied up at the navy's headquarters on
Haulbowline island in Cork harbour.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the harbour at Cork Dockyard, the
LE Eithne is also being examined for asbestos amid concern the
substance is in its forward pump room.

"An initial examination of the ship drawings indicated an area of
potential concern and will be examined as a precaution and dealt
with in accordance with HSA guidelines if deemed necessary," the
spokeswoman said.

It is estimated that around 150 Naval Service personnel and
civilians workers employed by the Department of Defence may have
come into contact with asbestos on the ships and at workshops on
Haulbowline, where it was being cut up.

Asbestos becomes dangerous if it is ground down and people inhale
its dust and it can take up to 40 years before the symptoms begin
to show.

The spokeswoman said all Naval Service personnel had now been
medically screened for possible health risks.

Screening is also underway for civilian workers.

Asbestos has also been recently removed from a gasket in an engine
on the LE Aoife and the Naval Service says plans are underway to
carry out a fleet-wide sweep for the substance, which will include
the LE Aisling.

The Naval Service had thought all its ships were asbestos-free
following a report which was compiled by consultants 14 years ago.

The Naval Service said it is currently engaged with personnel to
further inform them on asbestos issues and address their concerns
in a proactive manner.

"At all times the Naval Service has communicated with their
personnel on every concern raised. Subject matter experts,
engineering, medical and health and safety [professionals], have
been engaged and provided expert advice. All such advice,
direction and guidance has been fully followed," the Naval Service
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Decontamination in Hungary to Cost HUF20BB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Keszthelyi, writing for Budapest Business Journal,
reported that asbestos removing asbestos from Hungarian
residential buildings is expected to cost about HUF 20 billion --
25 billion. Decontamination is urgent and should be carried out as
soon as possible, the Association of Hungarian Asbestos
Decontaminators said.

Many residential buildings in Hungary still contain 150,000 --
200,000 square meters of sprayed asbestos threatening the health
of approximately 30,000 people.

The association is initiating a campaign for decontamination by
starting with the registration of all the people involved in the
issue and urging authorities to create appropriate working
environment for the decontamination process.

According to chairman of the association G bor Borsody, it is
essential to educate people about the appropriate behavior in
flats being threatened by the presence of asbestos. He also noted
that the European Parliament adopted a resolution in March 2013 on
asbestos-related health threats, calling for the eradication of
all asbestos until 2023.

From the beginnings of 1970s, sprayed asbestos was used for fire
protection of buildings. Approximately 400,000-450,000 square
meters of asbestos was used during the construction of buildings
and almost half of it was used, and can be still found, at
residential buildings.  Inhalation of the chemical has serious
consequences, following the latency of 10-40 years, like lung or
laryngeal cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Set for High School Lunchroom
------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Mitchell, writing for WMBB.com, reported that lunchtime at
Sneads High School, in Florida, is congested and the rushed. The
lunchroom was ideal 60 years ago when it was built, but now the
school has grown and so has the need for expansion. The renovation
project was approved last year but it didn't include asbestos
removal in the kitchen area.

The Jackson County School Board looks to approve a contract to
combine the renovation and removal. This project will make
lunchtime both safe and more efficient.

"We have to start serving lunches at 10:30," said Steve Benton,
Jackson County School Board Superintendent. "It takes like three
hours to serve lunches."Asbestos is currently sitting harmless in
the kitchen ceilings. Benton said the project will cost 865
thousand dollars. Capital outlay and the 1/2 cent sales tax will
fund the project. Lunchroom capacity is at 190 people and the
school is home to just under 400 students which makes lunchtime
rushed and difficult to find a seat at times.

The renovation is set to begin after school is out for summer. The
renovation will include a nine hundred square feet expansion which
will be added to the south end of the lunchroom. An outdoor eating
area is also in the schools near future. "On the outside there
will be a knee wall," said Benton. "That will come up with a roof
over it for an outside eating area. It will be a modern cafeteria
when we get finished with it."

The project is set to wrap by November 1st. Once school starts,
students will have lunches from Grand Ridge and eat in the old
gymnasium.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Award for Sears
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Pennsylvania appellate
court has upheld an award of summary judgment for Sears, Roebuck
and Co., American Biltrite and Certainteed, finding that the
plaintiff had not presented evidence that the decedent was exposed
to asbestos in the defendants' products with regularity.

In the May 27 opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court opined that
the evidence in total -- including the decedent's own deposition
testimony -- "lacks the requisite showing" of frequent, proximate
and regular asbestos exposure, as required by Pennsylvania law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Retains Jurisdiction in Naval Case
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York federal court has
retained jurisdiction over a U.S. Naval asbestos exposure case,
finding that the removing defendants had raised a colorable
federal defense.

In the May 30 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York additionally denied the plaintiffs' efforts
to obtain summary judgment on the defendants' government
contractor defense, saying it was too early in the proceedings to
consider such a motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Jury Takes Aim at Ancient Pipes
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Fiorina, writing for 10news.com, reported that water main
and pipe breaks have become a fact of life with the San Diego,
California infrastructure reaching old age.

The San Diego County grand jury issued a warning about 2,100 miles
of underground asbestos-cement pipe that is worn out.

"The city needs to re-prioritize and accelerate the replacement of
these pipes," said Gregory Ny, foreman of the grand jury.

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has been pushing for
infrastructure renewal for years.

"I'm never surprised at the backlog of infrastructure because of
what the city did not do and should have been doing, literally,
for decades," Faulconer said. "We're doing condition assessments
on all those pipes. Doesn't do us any good to be penny-wise and
pound-foolish."

San Diego city council president Todd Gloria spoke of the enormity
of the situation.

"This problem is at least $2 or $3 billion large," Gloria said.
"And when you understand that the city general fund budget is $1.2
billion, you understand how difficult it's going to be to meet all
of our obligations to neighborhood infrastructure with our current
financing."

The timetable is daunting, too.

"Even at 40 miles per year, we're talking over 50 years to replace
this asbestos pipe," Ny estimated.

And no neighborhood is immune.

Ryan Paton, who owns Starkey's BBQ in Mission Beach, remembers
having to close for the day in April when a water main broke.  "If
this is the case all around San Diego, there's going to be a lot
of economic hardship -- one day for a small business like this can
mean a lot."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresno Jury Awards $10.9MM in Mesothelioma Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Worthington & Caron (http://mesothel.com/)Law Firm is pleased
to announce that a jury in Fresno, California, has returned a
substantial verdict in favor of our clients, the family of James
'Jimmy' Phillips, deceased, a 59-year-old plumber and race car
enthusiast.

Defendant Honeywell, whose predecessor, Bendix, made asbestos-
containing brake pads and linings, was the only defendant at
trial. The jury awarded $7.4 million in compensatory damages and
assigned 30% of fault to Bendix. The jury also found that Bendix
acted with reckless indifference and awarded an additional $3.5
million in punitive damages. This was the first mesothelioma
verdict ever awarded in Fresno.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2012 in Alameda County,
California. The defendants fought to transfer venue to Fresno,
where they anticipated a more "defense-friendly" jury pool. The
Fresno jury deliberated six days before rendering its verdict in
favor of the Phillips family. The trial team of Stuart Purdy and
Rob Green (attorneys with co-counsel Simon, Greenstone, Panatier,
Bartlett) did an outstanding job putting on a strong case against
a very tough defendant in a new jurisdiction.

According to Rob Green, "Jim was always the guy the family and
community called on to help them out when something went wrong. It
was an honor to help out Jim and his family. Our trial was
straightforward. We explained what science, medicine and common
sense told us, and what every reputable expert in the field agreed
with, about this defendant's asbestos products. The jury
understood it and held them accountable."

Jimmy was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in March
of 2012. After nearly a year of treatment, Jimmy passed away from
his asbestos-caused cancer.

Purdy and Green presented evidence that Jimmy was exposed to
asbestos dust from automotive products while working on cars, race
cars, trucks and heavy equipment beginning in the 1960s.

John Caron of Worthington & Caron notes, "How many men like Jim
spent time as a teenager working part-time at a service station or
doing shade tree work on their cars? This was a virtual rite of
passage in our car-crazed nation in the 1950s through 70s.
Unfortunately, this little slice of Americana had deadly
consequences for Jim and many others because of the asbestos that
manufacturers like Bendix included in their products. We applaud
the jury for holding Bendix accountable for its role in causing
the nightmare the Phillips family has been living since Jim's
diagnosis."

Jimmy leaves behind Charity, his wife of 41 years, five children
and fourteen grandchildren. The family has chosen to work through
their loss by banding together to help others in their battle
against cancer. On May 24, Kourtni, one of Jimmy's daughters,
organized the 1st Annual "Jimmy's Golf Tournament" in Mariposa,
California. The tournament was an incredible success. A small army
of friends and family helped raise over $12,000, half of which was
donated to support mesothelioma research at the Pacific Meso
Center (http://www.phlbi.org/)in Los Angeles. The other half will
be distributed to local families battling cancer and towards a
college scholarship at the local high school.

Worthington & Caron are proud to be Gold Sponsors of the 1st
Annual Jimmy's Golf Tournament, and look forward to many more
years of supporting this worthy fundraiser that honors an
outstanding man.

Charity is extremely grateful and thankful to all of her
attorneys. "I am so proud of Stu and Rob. They never backed down.
The entire legal team was so supportive, both with any legal
issues as well as personal issues. Those boys fought long and hard
for Jimmy. I consider them a part of my family now."

For more information, please contact:
Worthington & Caron (http://mesothel.com/)
John Caron
1-800-831-9399


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Family Demands Fibro-Test Result
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Mathewson, writing for The Press, reported that a
Canterbury, New Zealand, family fears they have been exposed to
asbestos, but say Fletcher EQR and the Earthquake Commission (EQC)
are refusing to hand over the results of a test.

Architectural technician David Reynolds said he was told by
"reliable sources" that the test came back positive for asbestos,
but he had been unable to get confirmation from authorities,
despite asking for months.

Reynolds said the suspected contaminated material was cut by
workers who were not wearing protective clothing or masks and
while he was present.

Some was carried through the kitchen without care and some was
left exposed in the home's only toilet while his young children
were home, he said.

"[I] live with the fear that my family was exposed to asbestos."

He was seeking legal advice, including whether to get an
independent test done.

A Fletcher spokesman told The Press the result of the second
asbestos test was passed on verbally, although he was unable to
confirm the date that happened.

"Our standard is to also provide the written report, and we
apologise for not having done so in this case."

The spokesman confirmed the result was positive for asbestos and
related to the exterior cladding of the house.

Reynolds said the results were only "hinted" at and had never been
formally passed on.

"More than just telling us, they need to show us the report and
tell us where [the asbestos] is."

Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) member Andy Dickerson
raised concerns about the handling of asbestos in Canterbury's
rebuild in May 2011 "because I was concerned at what I was seeing
in the community".

Some groups were still trying to "play down" the importance of the
issue, he said.

"I believe this is a major issue for Christchurch going forward.
The CDHB has a statutory role to protect public health and should
not be swayed from carrying out this function."

It was likely that anyone who had been exposed to asbestos would
not show any health effects "for many years", he said.

WorkSafe New Zealand had investigated and closed five complaints
about the handling of asbestos during Canterbury's rebuild, and
was currently investigating a sixth complaint against Fletcher.

A WorkSafe spokesman said proceedings for the case were adjourned
by the Christchurch District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Appropriate Jurisdiction in Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Madison County, Ill., asbestos judge denied several
defendants' motions to dismiss based on the forum non conveniens
doctrine, arguing the defendants failed to sufficiently argue that
Illinois is inconvenient for all parties involved.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs of the Madison County Circuit Court
denied the dismissal requests on May 23 in four separate asbestos
personal injury lawsuits.

Judge Stobbs explained that the defendants did not dispute that
Illinois has jurisdiction over the cases, meaning Madison County
is a constitutionally appropriate forum for the actions.

Jack Warden filed his lawsuit in July 2012, alleging he was
exposed to asbestos-containing products that caused him to develop
lung cancer. Warden died from his illness in March 2013.

Seven of the 25 remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss,
arguing Utah was the proper location for litigation.

Wilma Munsey-Hunt filed her lawsuit in January 2013, alleging she
was exposed to the defendants' asbestos-containing products
through her husband, causing her to develop lung cancer. She died
from her injuries in May 2013.

Of the 40 remaining defendants in the case, 11 of them filed
motions to dismiss, alleging a court in Tennessee would be the
more proper venue.

Both cases were set for trial on Dec. 1 but were re-set for the
April 6 trial docket.

Plaintiff Robert Glenn Murphy served in the U.S. Navy from 1961 to
1965 in various locations, including Illinois, California and
Hawaii.

While in the Navy, Murphy served onboard the USS Epperson DD 719
and the USS John S. McCain DLS as a boiler man 3rd class, where he
claims he was exposed to asbestos through his duties.

After leaving the Navy, Murphy lived in Alaska, where he worked as
an insurance adjustor, postal worker, firefighter and school bus
driver. However, he contends that all asbestos exposures occurred
while serving in the Navy.

Seven of the 24 remaining defendants moved for dismissal, alleging
Alaska is the proper location for litigation.

Norman Brown, now deceased, alleged asbestos exposure while
serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1952 through 1972.

After leaving the Air Force, Brown alleged he worked as a systems
analysis for El Paso County in El Paso, Texas, from 1972 to 1973.
He then worked for El Paso Natural Gas Company from 1973 to 1985.
He claimed he was exposed to asbestos while installing electrical
components, cables and wiring in both positions.

Brown also performed personal automotive work at his home from
1956 to 1985, alleging asbestos exposure from automotive brakes
and clutches.

Brown died from his asbestos-related injuries in January 2013.

Of the 20 remaining defendants, 13 filed motions for dismissal,
alleging litigation would be more appropriate in the state of
Texas.

Judge Stobbs ruled that each defendant failed to show that the
plaintiffs could have filed their claims against all defendants in
their respective states.

The defendants also failed to specify which court in the alternate
states would be a more appropriate jurisdiction for the cases, he
ruled.

He added that the defendants must prove that there is more than
one forum with the power to hear the case in order to prevail.

"[N]ot only must a moving party demonstrate that a plaintiff's
initial forum is inconvenient to the moving party, but they also
must demonstrate that another forum is more convenient to all
parties involved," Judge Stobbs wrote.

Therefore, the defendants cannot prevail on their forum non
conveniens dismissal request without first successfully showing
that another forum would be more convenient for the parties, he
explained.

"It is the defendants' burden to satisfy these basic fundamental
elements, in order to show that the relevant public and private
interest factors overwhelmingly favor dismissal and deferral of
the case to another forum," Judge Stobbs wrote.

Judge Stobbs also stated that because only a select number of the
remaining defendants in each case moved for dismissal based on
forum non conveniens, the court would still have to try the case
with respect to the remaining defendants even if the motions were
granted.

"This result defeats the stated purpose of the forum non
conveniens rule, which is to 'unburden' the court with litigation
that could be more conveniently tried in some other forum," he
wrote.

"Additionally, the defendants' suggestion that the court dismiss
the entire case against all parties, even if they have not joined
in the motion to dismiss, is not 'practical,' because those
defendants who have not filed or joined in the motion cannot be
compelled to accept service, waive any available statute of
limitations defense or consent to jurisdiction and venue in the
proposed alternate forum. This result would not better serve the
ends of justice."

In addition, while it is not necessary for all defendants to join
in the motion, those requesting dismissal must present sufficient
evidence proving another forum is convenient to all parties, the
order explains.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Fibro Rules Enforced in Allerdale Borough
--------------------------------------------------------------
Times & Star reported that new rules to reduce the threat of fatal
diseases caused by asbestos in non-domestic properties, came into
force.

Environmental health officers at Allerdale, England, Borough
Council are offering advice to local people about the new
regulations.

Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulation 2002
creates a new legal duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic
premises.

The person responsible for the maintenance or repair of the
property must now carry out an inspection of the building to find
out whether it contains asbestos and what condition it is in.
They must also carry out a risk assessment and create a management
plan.

Many non-domestic properties in Allerdale are likely to contain
asbestos materials.

Unless this material is properly managed, building and maintenance
workers may breathe in harmful fibres when carrying out everyday
jobs.

All non-domestic buildings, whatever their function, are affected
by the legislation.  It also covers common areas of residential
rented properties, including shared halls, stairwells, lift shafts
and roof spaces.

Rachel Horton, Allerdale's specialist environmental health
officer, said: "The new legal duty is about managing any asbestos
in a building -- not about removing asbestos.

"Asbestos in good condition and not likely to be disturbed should
not be removed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Thomas Police Station Fibro Issue Probed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian McCallum, writing for St. Thomas Times-Journal, reported that
a report to council in St. Thomas, Ontario, advised any
renovations or systems upgrades to the existing police station
would necessitate the removal of material containing asbestos.

And a similar building audit on the council agenda indicates
approximately a dozen municipal buildings may contain asbestos
materials.

Thousands and thousands of square feet of acoustic ceiling tile
and vinyl floor tile "can remain in place until major system
upgrading or maintenance is undertaken," according to a survey of
the Colin McGregor Justice Building prepared by T. Harris
Environmental Management.

The purpose of the study was to assess the condition of building
materials known to contain asbestos, a designated substance under
the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The inventory found only eight isolated locations where mechanical
pipe fitting insulation with asbestos-containing material with a
Priority 1 classification which should be removed, repaired or
encapsulated.

However ceiling and flooring tiles throughout the building contain
asbestos, and while they remain in good condition and were
assigned a Priority 2 code, any major system upgrades would
necessitate asbestos repair or removal according to regulations
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

If these areas are not disturbed, they basically can remain there,
advised city human resources manager Graham Dart.

"If you just leave everything alone, and didn't do anything with
those (ceiling and floor tiles), they're fine. But if you start to
take them down because of renovations, then you need to deal with
them. From a health and safety perspective, if you're going to
take them down then put new ones up. They shouldn't go up.

"And then you have to have a plan in place to take care of the
asbestos. Because if you disturb it, you've got to take care of
it."

Dart explained this would not necessarily require staff vacating
the work area.

"You don't have to remove staff, depending on how extensive it is
and whether it is practical for staff to remain during any
renovations."

He noted similar audits have been done on every city-owned
building and council will receive this report.

"I think it involves about 22 buildings and I think around 13 have
some form of asbestos in them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Navy Plans Training for Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that the
Naval Service is starting to train key personnel in asbestos
awareness and its safe removal.

Gerry Rooney, general secretary for PDforra, the organisation
which represents enlisted personnel in the Naval Service, said he
has been informed by military authorities that around 110 of its
members was slated to begin training in asbestos-awareness and its
safe removal.

Mr Rooney said he had been told that the course would also be
included in part of the Naval College syllabus in the future for
training recruits.

He was critical of the delay in providing the training courses,
but said that it was welcome nonetheless and that the Naval
Service is under direction from the Health and Safety Authority to
complete this by July 4.

"We have not been given an indication on a date for commencement
of the fleet-wide survey," said Mr Rooney.

The Naval Service employed external consultants in 2000 to carry
out a similar survey. It claims the consultants reported that the
fleet was free from asbestos.

"I think this report gave them [Naval Service senior officers] a
false sense of security. They now know that was not a complete
survey. They've stepped up now and the training is a good thing,"
said Mr Rooney.

However, he added that PDForra's main concern remained the ongoing
health of its members who may have been exposed to the substance.

It can take up to 40 years before the symptoms become apparent.

"There will have to be ongoing work between ourselves, the
military authorities, and/or the Department of Defence on this,"
said Mr Rooney.

It is believed that around 100 Naval Service personnel and 50
civilian workers employed by the Department of Defence may have
come in contact with asbestos dust on the LE Ciara and LE Orla.

Experts have started removing the material from both ships, which
have been out of action for a number of weeks.

The work is expected to take several weeks more and is taking
place at the Navel Service headquarters on Haulbowline Island in
Cork Harbour.

The LE Eithne is also been surveyed for asbestos after fears were
raised it could also be onboard that ship.

The Naval Service says it is committed to carrying out a fleet-
wide survey for the substance.

It is feared that asbestos may be on five ships in its eight-
strong fleet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State-only Fibro Labelling "Unfair"
----------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Preiss, writing for The Age, reported that principals are
concerned that asbestos warning signs are worrying parents and
damaging the perception of state schools because their Catholic
and independent counterparts are exempt from posting them.

So far 318 state schools have been audited and labelled this year.
Victorian Principals Association president Gabrielle Leigh said
she was concerned parents might mistakenly believe only state
school buildings contained asbestos. "It could be any schools but
government schools are being told they have to put the signs up,"
she said. Ms Leigh said she'd heard reports of parents avoiding
some schools because they thought them unsafe.

Schools found to contain the substance must post signs at their
entrances saying an "induction" must be completed before any
workis done on the school site.

The buildings that have asbestos must have warning signs.
Oakleigh Primary School principal Jack Fisher said the signs left
a poor impression on parents of prospective students visiting for
the first time. "The first thing they see is a warning that
there's asbestos," he said.

Mr Fisher said principals were well trained in managing the
substance safely. "It's not anything that our parent community
needs to be concerned about. We manage it with all tradespeople
that come into the school."

Mr Fisher said he expected his school would also be required to
post the signs.

An Education Department spokesman said the number of asbestos
audits had "significantly increased". "These warning labels are an
important measure in ensuring that all members of the school
community . . . are part of the safety culture of the school."

Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals president
Frank Sal said the non-government school sector, pre-schools and
universities should be required to meet the same standards as
state schools.

"This has already caused significant angst in some circumstances
as people become concerned about health and safety," he said.

A Victorian WorkCover Authority spokeswoman said all workplaces
had legal responsibilities to manage asbestos. "If the asbestos is
in good condition and left undisturbed, it is usually safer to
leave it fixed or installed and review its condition over time,"
she said.

Opposition education spokesman James Merlino said direct cuts to
education by the Napthine government had delayed asbestos removal
in schools.

But Education Minister Martin Dixon said this year the Education
Department would do more asbestos audits than any time in the past
with a 24-hour hotline to respond quickly when asbestos needed to
be assessed. Mr Dixon said funding for emergency management and
removal of asbestos was ongoing and had increased under the
current government.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Encapsulation Used in New Zealand Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Bootham, writing for Radio New Zealand News, reported that
Fletcher Construction has admitted it has used encapsulation as a
method of containing asbestos in earthquake-damaged Christchurch
houses.  The company has done a U-turn after its chief executive
earlier denied any knowledge of the method being used to seal and
paint ceilings containing asbestos.

Radio New Zealand asked the Earthquake Commission under the
Official Information Act why encapsulation is a repair strategy in
residential homes, and in response Fletcher EQR said its
guidelines do not approve encapsulation as part of the Canterbury
Home Repair Programme.

Fletcher Construction chief executive Graham Darlow confirmed to
Radio New Zealand's Morning Report programme that it is not an
approved method.

However, a company spokesperson then said Mr Darlow was wrong, and
encapsulation was used as an approved method until early 2013 when
the Earthquake Commission and Fletchers opted for enclosure or
removal as a way of dealing with asbestos in homes.

Fletcher EQR said asbestos is now removed from houses in 85
percent of cases.

Encapsulation is where a sealant is applied to the stippled finish
to stop the asbestos fibres from being released into the
environment, then it's painted over, sealed and lacquered, while
enclosure is where, for example, the existing stippled ceiling
remains in place and a new ceiling is fixed underneath it.

An asbestos demolition specialist, who did not want to be
identified, told Radio New Zealand he was against encapsulation.

"All you are doing is leaving the problem there until other people
stumble across it, like the renovator who puts in a heat pump or a
plumber," he said.

Call to include asbestos in LIM reports

Records of asbestos found in houses should be included in Land
Information Memorandum (LIM) reports, according to the head of the
Real Estate Institute Helen O'Sullivan.

Ms O'Sullivan said when asbestos was found in houses it should be
removed completely, rather than enclosed or encapsulated.  But if
it was contained within the house, it was critical the information
be made available to homeowners and put on the LIM held by the
local council.

"That's where people go already to find information about what
building materials were used and known hazards about the property,
making it the most logical place to put it. If I was to find it in
my own home I would remove it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1 Million Mesothelioma Award Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an
asbestos lawsuit that was appealed by both sides in the case has
concluded with an appellate court upholding findings of the
original trial court and jury award.

The finding also serves to illustrate a recent uptick in filings
in the state of Pennsylvania following a recent finding of the
State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that holds that the Workers'
Compensation Act has no jurisdiction on occupational diseases such
as mesothelioma beyond 300 weeks, or 5.75 years following
manifestation of the disease.

That ruling -- Tooey v. AK Steel from November of last year --
provides would-be plaintiffs with more options beyond attempting
to pursue manufacturers of asbestos-laden products that might
otherwise not be identified or may have gone bankrupt over time.

The asbestos lawsuit that saw a $1 million award for the
plaintiffs centered on the health of Richard Rost, who originally
filed the lawsuit through his asbestosis attorney in 2009 with his
wife Joyce as a co-plaintiff. Rost has Mesothelioma, a disease
triggered by exposure to airborne asbestos years and sometimes
decades prior to the illness emerging. Defendants included Ford
Motor Company (Ford), General Electric, Westinghouse and
Ingersoll-Rand. However, the latter three defendants settled with
the plaintiffs out of court, before the trial had an opportunity
to begin.

The jury heard that Rost obtained employment with a Ford
dealership upon graduating from high school. He worked in the auto
shop and service bays, involved in maintenance activities that
included the sanding of brakes and the repair of clutch
mechanisms.

The asbestos mesothelioma plaintiff testified that brakes and
clutch systems in Ford vehicles manufactured from 1945 through to
1950 were up to 60 percent asbestos by weight. Rost claimed that
he was exposed to the known carcinogen in the shop when mechanics
routinely removed brake drums and blew out asbestos dust with
compressed air.

According to court records associated with Rost's asbestos
lawsuit, removing brake linings from brake shoes would result in
visible dust generated into an area, which, according to Rost's
testimony, was poorly ventilated to begin with. He also testified
that he was also responsible for cleaning the shop area at the end
of the day, sweeping and scooping up what amounted to three large
shovels full of debris and asbestos dust each day. Dumping said
dust into large containers would allow asbestos dust to billow
back up into the air, putting Rost into the unenviable position of
having to inhale the asbestos dust without benefit of protection.

Part of Rost's expert testimony came from Dr. Arthur Frank MD, who
noted that risk of developing asbestos cancer increased with each
exposure to the carcinogen, together with the observation that the
only safe exposure is deemed as being "zero."  The doctor also
noted that wearing work clothes home could foster a continuation
of exposure and exacerbate the problem for some time -- decades,
in fact.

Further expert testimony from Dr. Arnold Brody PhD suggested that
based upon the testimony of both Rost and Frank, it would be
reasonable to expect that the plaintiff was directly exposed to
roughly a million asbestos fibers while working at the automotive
garage.

The plaintiff's later tenure at Metropolitan-Edison related to
that facility's use of turbines, manufactured by General Electric
and insulated with asbestos, as were pumps manufactured by
Westinghouse and Ingersoll-Rand.

Rost testified that asbestos at the Metropolitan-Edison plant was
"coming down like snow."

Rost did not pursue Metropolitan-Edison in his litigation - his
employer at the time, but rather the manufacturers of the products
that allegedly contained asbestos. However, attorneys navigating
their way through the changes triggered by Tooey v. AK Steel, note
that it makes perfect sense to hold an employer accountable.

"If you have a guy who worked in a plant for 20 to 25 years, an
employer is going to be a major player when providing a workplace
that's safe," said Defense attorney Peter J. Neeson of Rawle &
Henderson, in comments published in The Legal Intelligencer
(6/2/14). "From a scientific, warning and exposure standpoint, if
the employer is in the best situation to do something about
working conditions, why wouldn't the employer be in there
answering the kind of accusations that come up in these cases?"

The appellate court in the Rost lawsuit concluded that expert
testimony provided by experts for the plaintiff was both credible
and consistent, but that expert testimony provided by defendant
Ford was deemed to be inconsistent.

Judge Jack Panella of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania delivered
the Court's opinion on Rost on May 19, an opinion shared by Judges
Judith Olson and James Fitzgerald.

The asbestos cancer victim was awarded $844,800 for his asbestos
claims, while his wife was awarded $150,000 for loss of consortium
in the original trial by jury. The appellate court upheld that
decision.

Attorneys have noted an increase in cases in which plaintiffs join
their former employers in ongoing litigation, as well as new
actions in which the plaintiffs are suing employers directly,
following the State Supreme Court decision on Tooey v. AK Steel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Life of Former Wolverhampton Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that Denise Healey, who lived with her
businessman husband Michael in Keepers Lane, Wolverhampton, in
England, died on Christmas Day in 2013 in Compton Hospice.

The 61-year-old had worked for some time at The Three Tuns pub in
Wolverhampton, the inquest at Walsall Manor Hospital heard.

In a report read out at the hearing it was said the cellar walls
were lined with asbestos sheeting which was cracked and broken
from being bumped with beer barrels.  She went to the cellar every
week for the beer delivery and also helped to keep it clean.

Although a post mortem did not find any asbestos fibres, West
Midlands coroner Robin Balmain said that death from mesothelioma
was almost always associated with asbestos exposure. He concluded
that death was due to an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Democrats Tone-Deaf on Veterans' Fibro Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Warner, writing for Huffington Post, reported that in the
dark cloud that is the ongoing Veterans' Affairs scandal, Mayor
Emanual's words offer a silver lining. With the resignation of the
head of the VA and calls for criminal investigations, we see a
chance for veterans' issues to get the reform they deserve -- yet
it seems that President Obama and other Democrats might be a bit
tone-deaf to actual challenges facing our vets.

Certainly, "reform" promises a long list, and U.S. Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
illustrated that he's among those facing the political music in
announcing the Restoring Veterans' Trust Act, which outlines a
litany of changes.

But, as a civil justice observer, might I add one missing item to
the agenda? It's certainly not up there with immediate healthcare
needs, but new federal court rulings threaten to open old wounds
for many who made the ultimate sacrifice, albeit decades after
they served.

A bit of background: You've seen those ads seeking victims of
mesothelioma, which is a cancer caused by asbestos, right?
Compensation for those tragedies is nearly always in the millions
of dollars, and connecting lawyers with victims has made
"mesothelioma" the most expensive of Google's search words.

Well, a disproportionate number of "meso" victims are veterans. A
recent study indicated that, while vets are only 8 percent of the
U.S. population, they are 30 percent of mesothelioma victims. The
reason is that military equipment, including Navy ships, used a
lot of asbestos. It can take decades to kill you, but those "meso"
cases are hitting the courts today.

Asbestos litigation is the nation's longest-running personal
injury issue.  More than 60 companies have gone bankrupt over
their liability.  Now, huge changes are afoot in the industry,
involving trust funds set up as part of those bankruptcies.

The trust funds have been private, administered largely by
victims' attorneys. That is rapidly changing, with transparency
laws already passed in three states (Wisconsin, Ohio, and
Oklahoma) and proposed in North Carolina. The idea is to prevent
lawyers filing one set of "facts" with trust A, then another set
with trust B, and alleging yet another story at trial.

It's not just states: The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency
Act, or FACT Act, passed the U.S. House of Representatives last
year.

Transparency efforts got a significant boost in January with a
federal bankruptcy case against the gasket manufacturer Garlock
Sealing Technologies, where, as Reuters reported, "[the judge]
found what he called a 'startling pattern' of abuse by plaintiffs'
lawyers [and] may have shifted the landscape of asbestos
litigation with a ruling in favor of manufacturers." And the
National Law Journal reports that insurance companies argue that
"this court's opinion suggests pervasive fraud on the part of
asbestos claimants and their counsel."

Two things make this a veterans' issue:

First, while many trust fund claims were no doubt driven by
lawyers, they were signed -- under penalty of perjury -- by
veterans or their survivors. Of course, people just signed
whatever the lawyer told them to sign. But, as the Garlock case
showcased, companies have made it clear that clients, not just
lawyers, are subject to questions, thus reopening some old cases.

Secondly, anybody actually "gaming" the system reduces the funding
available for legitimate claims, meaning that veterans seeking
trust fund compensation are paid less than they would have been
otherwise.

To see how veterans' groups are front-and-center, you only need
look at Wisconsin, which passed a state FACT Act this year.
Alerted by FACT opponents, groups like the Wisconsin VFW and the
Wisconsin Military of the Purple Heart expressed concerns that
vets face more hurdles for compensation.

Republicans, usually known for supporting military issues, found
themselves accused of being anti-vet. But then the state AMVETS
group supported the legislation, saying that "in short, this bill
is about transparency and fairness to protect our veterans with an
emphasis on availability on assets for our current and future
veterans."

Even before the current VA scandal, I was among those pleading for
bipartisan engagement in the wake of Garlock and state FACT
movements. But when U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) introduced S.
2319, the Senate version, contending that the "FACT Act would
ensure that asbestos bankruptcy settlement trusts are able to
fully compensate future claimants by preventing fraud," I was
disappointed to see that it only had GOP cosponsors.

Since my plea to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and his
Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee fell on deaf ears,
how about some attention from Sen. Bernie Sanders and his
Veterans' Affairs Committee?

Mayor Emanual had it right. The GOP will not let this serious
crisis go to waste, and Democrats should embrace the chance to do
the right thing for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Involved in Prixford Garage Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Howells, writing for North Devon Gazette 24, reported that
asbestos was involved in a fire in Prixford, England, fire
fighters have confirmed.  Crews from Barnstaple and Ilfracombe
were called out at around 8.15pm to find the single storey garage
on fire.  They extinguished the fire using breathing apparatus
wearers and a hose reel jet, as well as ventilating the building.
The garage, which contained asbestos, was severely damaged in the
blaze, which was believed to have been accidental.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal for Info Over Death of Huntingdon Man
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Makey, writing for Cambridge News, reported that the widow
of an industrial engineer who died from an asbestos-related cancer
has appealed for information from former workmates to help lawyers
discover how he was exposed to the deadly dust.

Michael Kinaszczuk, 54, from Huntingdon, England, died from
malignant mesothelioma in 2012, less than a year after he was
diagnosed with the condition.  He worked at Whitworths factory in
Irthlingborough as an engineer and went into the factory on a
daily basis to monitor production.  Now his wife Mary has
instructed industrial disease experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell
to find out how he came into contact with asbestos and an appeal
for information from former workmates has been made.

Martyn Hayward, an asbestos lawyer from Irwin Mitchell, said:
"Michael's family are devastated to have lost him in such tragic
circumstances and understandably they want answers as to how this
happened.

"We are keen to speak to anybody who worked with Michael during
his career as an industrial engineer as we believe they may hold
vital evidence about the presence of asbestos and the working
conditions that he endured."

Mr Hayward said the potential dangers of asbestos had been known
for many years.

Mrs Kinaszczuk said: "Michael's cancer diagnosis was heartbreaking
for him and for the family as a whole and it was devastating when
he died less than a year after the diagnosis.

"He fought against the illness as best he could, but it was very
difficult watching him suffer during his final months.
"I just hope that his former workmates will be able to shed some
light on the conditions he endured."

Mr Kinaszczuk moved to Huntingdon in 1988 to work for Whitworths.
He began to suffer from a persistent cough in 2011 and was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2012. He died the following
November.

Whitworths declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Refuses to Create New Bar Date Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a federal appeals court has affirmed a bankrupt company's
request for summary judgment, arguing the asbestos claim filed
against Placid Oil Company was discharged as claimants were given
sufficient notice of the 1987 bar date.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Emilio M. Garza
delivered the opinion on May 27 with Judge Eugene Davis concurring
in the decision.

The majority affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the
plaintiffs were unknown creditors whose pre-petition claims were
discharged by Placid's sufficient notice of the bar date in the
Wall Street Journal.

Judge James L. Dennis dissented, concluding that the methods of
informing potential, unknown creditors of the bankruptcy bar date
was insufficient because future asbestos claimants were unaware of
their exposure and possible illness at the time of the notice.

"[C]onstructive notice by publication to asbestos-exposed
individuals with unmanifested or latent mesothelioma, without
appointment of a representative for such future claimants, does
not satisfy due process," Dennis wrote.

Plaintiffs Jimmy Williams, Sr., Jimmy Williams, Jr., Dalton Glen
Williams, Jeanette Williams Shows and Gwendolyn Williams Peacock
originally filed their lawsuit in a Louisiana state court in March
2004 on behalf of Myra Williams, deceased.

Placid, a Texas company, owned and operated a large natural gas
production and processing facility near Black Lake, La. It was
blamed for contributing to Myra Williams's death in the lawsuit.

Williams' husband worked at the Black Lake facility from 1966 to
1995 and was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation during his
work. Williams was then allegedly exposed to the asbestos dust and
fibers while laundering her husband's clothing.

Williams was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer and
mesothelioma and died from her illness on Aug. 9, 2003.

Garza wrote that prior to Placid's plan confirmation, no asbestos-
related claims had been filed against the company, and the
plaintiffs failed to file a proof of claim. Then after the plan's
confirmation, other plaintiffs brought asbestos lawsuits against
Placid, but it was never found liable and never settled in any of
the claims.

However, Placid filed for bankruptcy in 1986. The bankruptcy court
set Jan. 31, 1987, as the bar date by which potential creditors
were required to file claims. As part of its obligations, Placid
published three separate notices of the bar date in the Wall
Street Journal informing creditors of the existence of the
bankruptcy case, their opportunity to file proofs of claim,
relevant deadlines, consequences of not filing a proof of claim
and how to file a proof of claim.

By Sept. 30, 1988, Placid confirmed its Fourth Amended Plan of
Reorganization, providing that all claims against Placid that
arose on or before the confirmation date were forever discharged
except for Placid's obligations under the plan, which did not
mention potential future asbestos liability claims.

In response to the lawsuit, Placid requested to reopen its
bankruptcy case in November 2008. Then in September 2009, Placid
filed a complaint asking the bankruptcy court to determine whether
the plaintiffs' claims were discharged.

The bankruptcy court eventually granted Placid's request for
summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs had pre-
confirmation claims and that the claims were discharged by
Placid's notice in the Wall Street Journal.

In the plaintiffs' appeal, they first argued that the bankruptcy
court erred by considering them "unknown" creditors, meaning the
constructive notice of the bar date satisfied due process.

A debtor is required to provide actual notice to "known" creditors
in order to discharge their claims, which include claimants
actually known to the debtor and those who are "reasonably
ascertainable."

On the other hand, Garza wrote, debtors only need to provide
"unknown creditors" with constructive notice through publication,
meaning the Wall Street Journal notices were sufficient.

"Unknown creditors" include those whose "interests are either
conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon
investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge
[of the debtor]," the opinion states.

The court concluded that claimants must be reasonably
ascertainable, not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the court
must determine that a debtor has specific information related to a
claimant's actual injury. Information only suggesting a claim is
foreseeable is insufficient.

Garza added that while Placid knew of the asbestos-related
dangers, such information only suggested a risk to the plaintiffs
and does not make them known creditors.

"Here, Placid had no specific knowledge of any actual injury to
the Williams prior to its bankruptcy plan's confirmation," he
wrote.

The plaintiffs also argued that even if they were unknown
creditors, Placid's general notices of the bar date were
insufficient for due process purposes. However, Garza wrote that
neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Rules require bar date notices
to apprise creditors of potential claims.

"We hold that because a bar date notice need not inform unknown
claimants of the nature of their potential claims, Placid's
notices were substantively sufficient to satisfy due process,"
Garza wrote.

"We decline to articulate a new rule that would require more
specific notice for unknown, potential asbestos claimants," he
continued.

Dennis, however, disagreed with the majority, saying the
underlying legal issue in the case is whether a bankruptcy court
may hold that a wrongful death asbestos lawsuit was discharged in
a bankruptcy filed by a housewife's husband's former employer 15
years before she was aware of any symptoms of her mesothelioma.

"In my view, the bankruptcy court in this case erred in failing to
recognize that such a result would violate the constitutional
guarantee of due process of law," Dennis wrote.

On appeal, the plaintiffs only addressed the issue of whether the
constructive notice by publication provided to unknown, future
claimants passed constitutional muster, he explained.

Although, Dennis explained that the case at hand goes beyond the
plaintiffs' concern regarding the method of notice, saying the
alleged error "cannot adequately be addressed without considering
a more fundamental due process issue whether a latent asbestos
claim of an asbestos-exposed, but not yet knowingly injured,
person is dischargeable in bankruptcy and, if so, under what
circumstances."

"Therefore, I believe that the plaintiffs have sufficiently
preserved and argued all such errors for our review," he
continued. "Even if the majority of this panel refuses to grant he
plaintiffs relief because of their deficient appellate briefing,
this panel still owes a duty to oversee the orderly development of
our jurisprudence, and a duty to future victims of mesothelioma
and other latent diseases, to acknowledge and correct, rather than
to paper over, the errors plainly evident in the bankruptcy
court's decision below."

Dennis explained that the constitution only requires notice to
interested parties of the pending action so they have an
opportunity to object.

Dennis argued the majority misrepresented the Lamelle and Mullane
decisions, which did not address whether an unknown, future claim
was dischargeable in bankruptcy.

"Not only has the court never endorsed such an approach, but a
majority of the court has also strongly indicated that requiring
only constructive notice to individuals exposed to asbestos but
who do not know about either their exposure or the harm that may
result would present grave problems," he explained.

Dennis added that unknown, future claimants often don't recognize
that their rights will be affected by a bankruptcy proceeding.
They may be unaware that they were exposed to asbestos because an
asbestos-related disease hadn't manifested by the time the debtor
files for bankruptcy.

"'Even if they fully appreciate the significance of [the] notice,
those without current afflictions may not have the information or
foresight needed to decide, intelligently, whether' to participate
in the bankruptcy," he stated.

Thus, these future claimants cannot make decisions regarding how
to assert a claim and are, therefore, "'incompetent' for purpose
of the bankruptcy case."

Consequently, Dennis argued that publication is basically no
notice at all if the future claimants do not know their claims.

As a result, Dennis argues the bankruptcy should have appointed a
Future Claims Representative to represent the interests of unaware
victims, like the plaintiffs in this case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Article Rejects 3rd-Party Duty-to-Warn Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that in an article for the American Journal of Trial Advocacy, two
asbestos defense attorneys from Shook, Hardy & Bacon addressed
concerns about what they say is a growing trend of plaintiffs'
attorneys attempting to impose duty to warn liability for
asbestos-containing products manufactured by third-party
companies.

Mark Behrens and Margaret Horn jointly wrote the article titled
"Liability for Asbestos-Containing Connected or Replacement Parts
Made by Third-Parties: Courts are Properly Rejecting this Form of
Guilt by Association," revealing how virtually every asbestos
court to consider the theory has rejected it.

"Ordinarily, manufacturers are named in asbestos cases with
respect to asbestos that was contained in their own products --
not to hold them liable for products made by others," Behrens and
Horn explained.

"This is an important point to keep clear. Whether couched in
terms of strict liability or negligence, or in terms of
manufacturing defect, design defect or failure to warn, it is
black-letter product liability law that manufacturers are not
liable for harms caused by others' products except in limited
situations not presented in these cases. 'The [defendant's own]
product must, in some sense of the word, 'create' the risk.'"

Third-party duty-to-warn cases, specifically against external
thermal insulation and asbestos-containing component parts
manufacturers, became more prevalent after nearly 100 companies
entered the protection of bankruptcy. Plaintiffs and their
attorneys then turned the blame to the remaining companies still
able to go to trial, thus claiming manufacturers have a duty to
warn about products made by other companies, the article says.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that manufacturers of "baremetal"
products -- such as turbines, pumps and valves -- that originally
came with asbestos-containing component parts should have warned
of potential harms from possible asbestos exposure when replacing
the parts with asbestos-containing products made by other
companies.

Behrens and Horn note the O'Neil decision in the Supreme Court of
California, which had drawn a line in duty-to-warn liability,
holding that defendants are only responsible for harms caused by
their own products unless the "'defendant's product contributed
substantially to the harm, or the defendant participated
substantially in creating a harmful combined used of the
products.'"

The O'Neil case involved a former sailor who died from
mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos in the
engine and boiler rooms of a WWII era naval ship in the late
1960s. His family sued two companies that sold valves and pumps to
the navy at least 20 years before the decedent worked aboard the
ship

The decedent's family claimed he was exposed to asbestos-
containing external insulation and replacement gaskets and
packing, all of which were manufactured and sold by third-parties.

When reaching its decision in O'Neil, the court stated, "It is
fundamental that the imposition of liability requires a showing
that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an act of the
defendant or an instrumentality under the defendant's control.

"[T]he foreseeability of harm, standing along, is not a sufficient
basis for imposing strict liability on the manufacturer of a non-
defective product, or one whose arguably defective product does
not actually cause harm."

The court also held that the defendants had no duty to warn in
negligence claims about the hazards of asbestos dust released from
surrounding products that was a foreseeable consequence of
maintenance work on defendants' pumps and valves.

The court concluded that extending duty-to-warn to third-party
products would "exceed the boundaries established over decades of
product liability law."

Behrens and Horn say that imposing liability on manufacturers and
sellers for an asbestos-containing product made by a third-party
would present unsound public policy.

Referring to O'Neil, they say that the doctrine of strict product
liability was never intended to impose "insurer-like" asbestos
liability.

"In contrast, plaintiffs' theory in the 'baremetal' product and
third-party replacement part cases 'would make all manufacturers
the guarantors not only of their own products, but also of each
and every product that could conceivably be used in connection
with or in the vicinity of their product,'" they wrote.

If courts enforced such strict duty to warn liability on every
relative hazards of third-party products, it would lead to
"business chaos" as every manufacturer and supplier warned of
every foreseeable danger of every product used at a jobsite, the
article says.

In fact, companies that may have never manufactured or sold
asbestos-containing products could still be held liable, Behrens
and Horn claim.

Behrens and Horn also say that over-warning can also be a problem.

"Perhaps the only limit on such an expansive legal requirement
would be the imagination of creative plaintiffs' lawyers," Behrens
and Horn wrote.

"Indeed, if a manufacturer's duty were defined by foreseeable
users of other products, the chain of warnings and liability would
be so endless, unpredictable, and speculative that it would be
worthless. No rational manufacturer could operate under such a
system. Manufacturers cannot be expected to have research
facilities to identify potential dangers with respect to all
products that may be used in conjunction with or in the vicinity
of their own products."

Citing O'Neil, they added that "'to warn of all potential dangers
would warn of nothing.'"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blamed for Shropshire Plant Worker's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shropshire Star reported that a British Sugar worker died of lung
cancer after being exposed to asbestos at the company's
Shropshire, England, factory, a coroner has ruled.

Gordon William Edward Cooke, 74, who worked at the Alscott plant
from the  1960s until the 1990s died due to industrial disease, an
inquest found.

Mr Cooke, who worked as a sugar boiler, also carried out
maintenance work on the building where he came into contact with
the deadly fibres.

Mr Cooke, of Appledore Gardens, Wellington, died of lung cancer on
April 4, 2014.

A post-mortem examination revealed asbestos exposure had
contributed to his condition -- squamous carcinoma.

John Ellery, coroner for Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin, told Mr
Cooke's wife, who attended the inquest at Wellington: "Mr Cooke
worked at British Sugar in Allscott between 1965/1966 to 1996/1997
so that's 31 years. Locally we know that whilst there could be
permanent work it was extremely busy during what was called the
campaign when the sugar beet came into the factory and it was
processed and the sugar came back out the other end.

"He was a sugar boiler and he also did maintenance work where he
came into contact with asbestos."

He added: "There is a clear connection with your husband's work at
British Sugar and his death and I therefore record a conclusion of
industrial disease."

It is understood Mr Cooke's family have instructed solicitors to
file a compensation claim against British Sugar.

Asbestos was used in the construction industry to strengthen
plastic or cement and for insulation.

When products containing asbestos are disturbed, tiny asbestos
fibres are released into the air.

When asbestos fibres are breathed in, they may get trapped in the
lungs and remain there for a long time.

Over time, these fibres can accumulate and cause scarring and
inflammation, which can affect breathing and lead to serious lung
conditions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Failure to Disclosure Deal Results in Mistrial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Tennissen, writing for The Southeast Texas Record,
reported that a former Delaware judge recalled an asbestos case
involving Beaumont's Brent Coon & Associates that demonstrates the
need for more transparency in asbestos litigation.

Plaintiffs who have claims of asbestos exposure and asbestos-
related illnesses can seek relief in two ways: through the filing
of a tort action against solvent manufacturers of asbestos-
containing products and by filing claims with any of more than 60
asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Many states, including Delaware,
Illinois, California, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
Texas, require full disclosure of any claims.

Judge Peggy Ableman was assigned to the asbestos litigation docket
just before retiring from the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware.

"In that capacity, the circumstances of one particular asbestos
wrongful death case over which I was to preside unexpectedly
thrust me at the center of one of the most controversial issues
that has ever dominated asbestos litigation -- the lack of any
nexus, interface or transparency between the two systems that
currently exist for providing compensation to victims of asbestos
exposure," she wrote in a submission to American Journal of Trial
Advocacy.

The case she referred to involves a civil wrongful death suit over
a woman's asbestos exposure from her husband's laundry.  The
plaintiff did not disclose that Beaumont's Brent Coon & Associates
had already gotten him two settlement checks from asbestos trusts.

The civil lawsuit was filed Nov. 25, 2009, by Arthur and June
Montgomery in the Superior Court in New Castle County, Del.

June Montgomery died of mesothelioma in June 2010.  Arthur
Montgomery had worked as an electrician for the Port Everglades
Power Plant, Broward County, Fla., and the suit claimed June
Montgomery was exposed to asbestos by daily laundering of her
husband's work clothes.

On the morning the trial for the Montgomery case against the
remaining defendant Foster Wheeler was set to begin in November
2011, Judge Ableman learned that neither the plaintiff nor his
attorneys disclosed a "significant" number of trust submissions
and withheld a "substantial" amount of evidence regarding June
Montgomery's exposure that had been submitted to the trusts but
not to the defendant at trial.

Judge Ableman soon learned there had been 20 bankruptcy claims
submitted for the Montgomerys by Coon & Associates. Three of the
trusts had paid -- Johns Manville, Keene and Celotex and those
payouts were based "solely on Mr. Montgomery's work history."

The other 17 claims -- to Halliburton, Harbison Walker, AWI, USG,
B&W, OC, FB, Ferado, Flexitallic, Turner & Newell, Plibrico, GI
Holdings, Artra, HK Porter, Asarco, Porter Hayden and ABB Lummus
-- were still pending at the time of the trial.

Court papers show that two days before trial, plaintiffs' attorney
Scott Barnes, of Ward & Barnes in Pensacola, Fla., first learned
about the trust claims when Brian Montgomery arrived in town for
the trial.

"I have been completely unaware of this until this moment, and
believed there had been no bankruptcy claims filed . . .," wrote
Barnes in an email to the defense counsel.

Foster Wheeler's counsel, Brian Kasprzak of Marks O'Neill O'Brien
& Courtney PC and Chris S. Marks of Sedgwick LLP, said the failure
to disclose was a violation of civil rules which state that
"within 30 days of the filing of an asbestos action, plaintiff
shall serve defense counsel with copies of all forms and materials
related to any insurance carrier, employer, governmental agency,
trust, entity or person related to or in any way involved with
asbestos claims." This includes copies of all material related to
applications claims made to trusts for bankrupt asbestos
litigation defendants.

"Nevertheless, Plaintiff asked for money from these trusts on the
representations to these trustees that Mrs. Montgomery's
mesothelioma was caused by her exposure to asbestos from products
made by the companies that established the trusts," Foster Wheeler
attorneys wrote in a letter to Judge Ableman.

The omissions, whether done intentionally or by negligence, would
result in "severe prejudice" against Foster Wheeler in front of
the jury, and the defense attorneys sought contempt charges.

In addition, the trust payments showed "the existence of admitted
exposure to asbestos including products that were not part of
discovery."

"Had these claims been timely disclosed by plaintiff, Foster
Wheeler would have taken a number of steps towards developing
discovery and defense" including at the very least during
depositions of Arthur Montgomery and expert witnesses.

"Foster Wheeler was given no such opportunity, however," Kasprzak
wrote.

"Moreover, it is apparent that Brian Montgomery, the decedent's
personal representative, bears responsibility for the failure to
disclose bankruptcy claims. According to his testimony, he
accepted settlement checks from his Texas lawyers for two
bankruptcy claims 8 or 9 months before trial. Brian Montgomery
claimed that he did not bother to apprise his Florida or Delaware
lawyers of the claims. The failure to do so was at least reckless,
in light of the Court's scheduling order. And the Plaintiff bears
responsibility for the discovery violation as well."

The only reasonable remedy now that the case was at trial was to
dismiss the claims against Foster Wheeler, the attorneys argued.

Because a jury was waiting to serve and judicial and
administrative resources had already been wasted, Judge Ableman
said she had "no choice" but to continue the trial, leading to a
dismissal of the case.

The judge said the problem, she learned, is that there is no
"foolproof mechanism" to enforce the requirement that all
settlements received from trusts be revealed if any civil action
is taken.

"My reaction to the deceptive behavior caught the attention of
those who were actively seeking greater transparency between the
two compensation systems," Ableman wrote. "As a result, upon my
retirement, I was frequently asked to testify about my experience,
unquestionably because the case presents a quintessential example
of the abusive practices that members of the asbestos defense bar
are actively seeking to curb."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pushback v. Bankruptcy Trust Abuse May Grow
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel T. Reynolds, writing for Law360, reported that almost two
decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in deciding Amchem Products
Inc. v. Windsor described asbestos litigation in this "country as
a crisis." Little has changed since the high court's
pronouncemens; in fact, the past two decades have been infected by
the proliferation of asbestos bankruptcy trusts and resultant
manipulation of those trusts.

Asbestos personal injury trusts multiplied after many of the early
primary asbestos product manufacturers reorganized under
bankruptcy law. A 2011 report issued by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office found that approximately 100 companies have
declared bankruptcy in the face of asbestos-related liability.

According to the report, bankruptcy trusts currently control over
$36 billion dollars in assets. When one company declares
bankruptcy, claimants search for a solvent entity to provide
compensation for their asbestos-related injuries. This search has
significantly increased the number and type of asbestos defendants
and, as of 2005, it is estimated that over 8,500 companies are
"asbestos defendants." Those defendants represent industries that
cover 85 percent of the U.S. economy.

Bankruptcy trusts pay out billions of dollars each year to
claimants who allege exposure to particular asbestos-containing
products. Monies are paid out independent of any civil litigation,
be it past, pending or future. Therefore, plaintiffs may obtain
compensation for asbestos-related personal injuries or death
without ever reporting it to named defendants. This two-tracked
scheme creates a built-in opportunity for asbestos claimants to
double-dip and receive compensation from two different pools of
money. Double-dipping creates inequities and results in the
potential for named civil defendants to overpay because
compensation received from bankruptcy trusts is relevant to a
determination of causation and setoffs and can implicate the
plaintiffs' credibility if the allegations plaintiffs make in
their bankruptcy trust submissions are contradicted by the
allegations made in their civil action.

In asbestos litigation, plaintiffs must establish that defendants'
products caused the alleged harm. Therefore, all exposures to
asbestos-containing products are probative to a determination of
fault. A submission of a claim for compensation to a bankruptcy
trust constitutes an admission of exposure to asbestos to the
product or products for which the bankruptcy trust was formed. In
some jurisdictions, a plaintiffs' admission of these exposures is
admissible for purposes of allocating fault. Information regarding
exposures to asbestos-containing products manufactured or
distributed by a bankrupt entity can implicate the manner in which
a defense is presented and how discovery is conducted.

The issues associated with asbestos bankruptcy trusts have
recently come to the forefront, in large part due to the Garlock
decision. On Jan. 10, 2014, a bankruptcy court judge considered
the estimated asbestos liability for Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC and ultimately determined the company's liability to be $125
million, a fraction of the previous estimate. In so ruling, the
court noted that certain plaintiff firms' "startling pattern of
misrepresentation" of exposure evidence rendered Garlock's
previous "settlements unreliable as a predictor of true
liability."

In the Garlock decision, the bankruptcy court was charged with
determining the reasonable estimate of the company's liability for
past and future mesothelioma claims. To reach its decision, the
court embarked on a lengthy exposition of asbestos litigation,
including the proliferation of asbestos personal injury trusts
following the bankruptcy of early primary asbestos defendants.
Garlock, a producer and seller of asbestos gaskets and other
related materials, was a named a defendant in the civil tort
system for three decades before Garlock's insurance was exhausted
and the company filed for bankruptcy protection.

Garlock's products were generally cloaked in thermal insulation
supplied by other manufacturers, which contained amphibole
asbestos fibers. The court noted that the scientific evidence
established that amphibole asbestos fibers were more potent than
chrysotile asbestos fibers. Garlock's products contained
encapsulated chrysotile asbestos fibers, which were only released
when someone manipulated the gasket material. Manipulation of
gasket material generally took place only after the removal of
thermal insulation, which caused what is often described by
plaintiffs as a virtual "snowstorm" of asbestos dust. Given the
limited potency of the asbestos fibers contained in Garlock's
products, and the close proximity to potent amphibole fibers, the
court concluded that Garlock's liability for mesothelioma should
be relatively small.

Garlock successfully leveraged its position during the initial
waves of asbestos litigation, often pointing to the responsibility
of other defendants that manufactured and sold thermal insulation
products. However, as asbestos litigation proliferated, many of
the early primary asbestos product manufacturers, including the
largest insulation sellers, reorganized under bankruptcy law. By
the mid-2000s, virtually all thermal insulation defendants were
bankrupt. When the insulation defendants departed the civil tort
system, previously ancillary defendants like Garlock were thrust
into the spotlight as target defendants. At the same time,
evidence demonstrating plaintiffs' exposure to thermal insulation
products disappeared.

Garlock presented evidence "that the last 10 years of its
participation in the tort system was infected by the manipulation
of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers." The court
allowed Garlock to conduct discovery into 15 settled cases and
found that in each and every case the plaintiffs' attorneys
withheld exposure evidence. The court noted that "it is
suppression of evidence for a plaintiff to be unable to identify
exposure in the tort case, but then later -- and in some cases
previously -- to be able to identify it in [t]rust claims."

The limited discovery into previously settled cases demonstrated
that plaintiffs' attorneys manipulated the chasm between the tort
system and the bankruptcy trust system by withholding evidence of
exposure to bankrupt defendants during civil litigation to later
resurrect claims against those defendants in order to recover from
bankruptcy trust funds. The court found that the seemingly
widespread practice of withholding exposure evidence unfairly
inflated Garlock's prior settlements, which were not a reliable
predictor of the company's true liability. Ultimately, the court
concluded that Garlock's true liability is $125 million for past
and future mesothelioma claims. Notably, Garlock has now sued four
plaintiffs' law firms and an individual attorney involved in the
15 settled cases considered by the court, accusing the lawyers of
violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
for their concealment of exposure evidence.

The Garlock decision resurrected the ongoing debate regarding the
propriety of asbestos transparency legislation. Most states and
the federal courts do not mandate coordination between the civil
tort system and bankruptcy trusts, despite the fact that evidence
of exposure to bankrupt companies' products can affect
determination of causation, allocation of fault, discovery and
set-offs in civil litigation.

The current bankruptcy trust system often allows plaintiffs to
obtain compensation for asbestos-related personal injuries or
death without ever reporting it to defendants named in the civil
court system. The lack of coordination between the two pools of
recovery provides an ideal environment for manipulation of
evidence, as demonstrated in Garlock. The seemingly ubiquitous
gamesmanship involved in the withholding of exposure evidence
should serve as an impetus for consideration of asbestos
transparency legislation. While the strong language used by the
court and subsequent RICO lawsuits could serve as a deterrent for
manipulation of exposure evidence, increased transparency between
the tort system and bankruptcy trusts is the surest way to
proscribe similar manipulation in the future.

To that end, the Garlock court allowed Ford Motor Co. to gain
access to previously sealed testimony and exhibits that formed the
basis for a bankruptcy court's Jan. 10, 2014, order finding a
widespread pattern of demonstrable misrepresentation by asbestos
claimants in order to maximize their recovery. See Order Granting
Ford Motor Company's Motion for Access to Rule 2019 Filings, In re
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Case No. 10-31607, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division (May 6, 2014).

The widespread pattern of manipulation of exposure evidence
suggested that Ford and other so-called chrysotile defendants "may
too have been defrauded in some of the same cases and that this
problem is pervasive and substantial enough to warrant further
inquiry." See Ford Motor Company's Motion For Access to Rule 2019
Filings and To Unseal the Evidence of "Demonstrable
Misrepresentation," In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Case
No. 10-31607, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (March 14, 2014).

Ford has been a co-defendant of Garlock's in asbestos litigation.
Like Garlock, Ford paid settlements to asbestos plaintiffs in
reliance upon misinformation. Therefore, Ford moved for an order
allowing it to access the documents relating to the 15 cases in
which the plaintiffs' attorneys were found to have withheld
exposure evidence. Because each of the 15 cases investigated by
the Garlock court demonstrated manipulation of exposure evidence
to extract higher payouts from solvent defendants, Ford suspected
that it may have been hoodwinked into paying artificially inflated
settlements.

On May 6, 2014, the court granted Ford access to the previously
sealed filings. The new order is significant because the Jan. 10
order noted that "more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse" in asbestos litigation. The bankruptcy court
therefore has signaled to plaintiffs' attorneys throughout the
country that manipulation of the asbestos bankruptcy trust is
over.

Perhaps we are witnessing a new trend toward judicial transparency
in asbestos litigation. Such transparency would have a
prophylactic effect and could prevent future widespread
manipulation of evidence. If plaintiffs' attorneys are aware of
the possibility that their settlements and exposure evidence may
be reviewed by future courts, they will be less tempted to play
games with exposure evidence, such as those uncovered by the
Garlock court. Certainly, granting Ford access to sealed records
relating to prior settlements may open the floodgates of such
requests, ultimately resulting in all of Garlock's asbestos co-
defendants accessing those same records.

While the Garlock decision has opened up for scrutiny issues that
were previously litigated, the court's findings might also provide
the political impetus necessary to pass asbestos transparency
litigation. To date, only three states have passed asbestos
bankruptcy trust transparency laws. After Garlock, North Carolina
may become the fourth to enact such a law. The state senate is
currently considering SB 648, "The North Carolina Commerce
Protection Act," which would require asbestos plaintiffs to
disclose claims made with bankruptcy trusts within 30 days of
making a claim. The bill would also provide sufficient time
between the disclosure of trust claims and trial to allow
defendants to conduct meaningful discovery into alternate
exposures.

Importantly, the bill would allow defendants to move for an order
requiring the plaintiff to file claims with trusts that haven't
already been disclosed, but which the defendant reasonably
believes the plaintiff has a viable claim. The plaintiff would
then have 10 days to file a claim with the trust or demonstrate
there is insufficient evidence to support an asbestos bankruptcy
trust claim. SB 648 would therefore prevent the type of
manipulation that was uncovered in the Garlock decision. By
forcing plaintiffs to identify all of their alleged exposures to
asbestos during civil litigation, it would preclude plaintiffs
from gaming the system by downplaying exposures to bankrupt
companies during civil litigation and then resurrecting their
claims to obtain maximum compensation from bankrupt companies.

While SB 648 is in the early stages of legislation, its
introduction demonstrates the widespread effect the Garlock
decision has had. To ensure that future plaintiffs are hindered
from manipulating exposure evidence, other courts should follow in
the Garlock court's lead and break down barriers allowing double
dipping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two National Law Firms Announce Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that two
national law firms -- Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd
LLC and Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP -- will
merge effective July 1. The new firm will be called Simmons Hanly
Conroy.

Simmons Browder specializes in asbestos, drug litigation, complex
litigation and personal injury. Since 1999, the firm says, it has
secured more than $4 billion on behalf of its clients. It has
offices in St. Louis, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and
Alton, Ill. and employs more than 60 attorneys and 150 support
staff.

Hanly Conroy handles mass tort and complex litigation. The New
York firm has nine attorneys and has had leadership roles in high
profile, multijurisdictional litigation such as the September 11
and the Pinnacle hip replacement litigation.

"The merger gives us a New York office, expands our attorney depth
and creates a streamlined practice with centuries of litigation
experience," Simmons Browder Chairman John Simmons said in a
statement. "Together, we are positioned as dominant national
leader in asbestos, mass tort and complex litigation matters, and
we are especially pleased that Jayne Conroy will continue her
leadership role as a named shareholder in the merged firm."

Simmons Browder and Hanley Conroy have worked together for more
than a decade on a variety of cases, including Oxycontin, Chantix,
Yaz and Toyota unintended acceleration cases.

"The firm's extensive federal court experience and national
resources will be a winning combination for clients and position
us to not only evolve but thrive in an ever-changing, competitive
legal marketplace," shareholder Paul Hanly said in a statement.

In addition to Simmons, Hanly and Conroy, current Simmons
shareholders Perry Browder, Ted Gianaris, John Barnerd and Michael
Angelides will continue to serve in management roles. John Simmons
will serve as chairman and Michael Angelides as managing
shareholder. Browder will continue to manage the firm's asbestos
department, and Hanly will oversee the firm's complex litigation
department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Lawyers Call Garlock "The Bad Guy"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that last January,
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of Charlotte, N.C., issued a
doozy of a ruling in the Chapter 11 of the gasket maker Garlock
Sealing Technologies. Lawyers for asbestos claimants wanted
Garlock to set aside more than $1 billion in a trust for thousands
of current and future victims of asbestos exposure. Garlock, which
maintains that anyone exposed to its long-ago products was also
exposed to more potent products manufactured by other companies,
argued that its liability was no more than $125 million.
Plaintiffs lawyers based their estimate on Garlock's settlement
history; Garlock contended that it was manipulated into overpaying
in settlements with plaintiffs lawyers who withheld evidence that
their clients were exposed to other manufacturers' products.

To test Garlock's allegations, Hodges ordered discovery on 15
closed product liability cases in which Garlock paid out
significant settlements. He held a 17-day hearing that included
testimony from 29 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. In all 15 of
the settled cases, Hodges said, Garlock was able to show that
lawyers for asbestos plaintiffs withheld evidence that their
clients were exposed to asbestos products from other companies.
"The fact that each and every one of (the surveyed cases) contains
such demonstrable misrepresentation is surprising and persuasive,"
Hodges wrote. He concluded that the "startling pattern of
misrepresentation" so inflated Garlock's settlements that the
company's settlement history was not a reliable gauge of its
future liability. Hodges sided with the company and pegged
Garlock's asbestos liability at $125 million.

Other asbestos defendants seized on the ruling to argue that
plaintiffs lawyers were monkeying with evidence. Some, including
Ford and Volkswagen, moved for access to records from the
estimation hearing, arguing that they deserved to know whether
plaintiffs who settled with Garlock later turned around and sued
them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, called Hodges'
opinion "a watershed" in exposing wrongdoing by asbestos lawyers,
and suggested that Congress take note of it. The U.S. House of
Representatives had already passed a bill to boost disclosure
requirements for asbestos bankruptcy trusts before Hodges issued
his Garlock opinion, but in May 2014, Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
introduced a Senate version of the bill.

Asbestos lawyers are eager to divert attention from the alleged
evidence manipulation Hodges described in the Garlock opinion --
which also pointed out that after denying their clients' exposure
to other products in litigation with Garlock, plaintiffs lawyers
frequently turned around and filed claims against asbestos trusts
of other defendants after they'd settled with Garlock.  The
plaintiffs lawyers have made a bid to undercut Hodges' opinion. In
a motion to re-open the hearing on Garlock's liability, lawyers
from Caplin & Drysdale claimed that Garlock violated Hodges'
discovery orders, hid evidence from the bankruptcy court and
presented false testimony at the estimation hearing. "Garlock has
committed a fraud upon the court," the accompanying memo said in
its first sentence.

Boiled down, the memo asserts that in two of the 15 cases Hodges
examined, Garlock possessed documentary and other evidence that
plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos products other than Garlock
gaskets, yet Garlock didn't disclose that evidence to Judge Hodges
because it would have undermined the company's argument that
plaintiffs lawyers controlled exposure evidence. The new proof of
what Garlock knew when those cases were being litigated, said
Elihu Inselbuch of Caplin, "directly contradicts what they said in
court. They indeed had evidence, and they've had it for decades."

Inselbuch and his partner Trevor Swett, who represent the asbestos
lawyers on the Garlock bankruptcy's committee of asbestos personal
injury plaintiffs, said that the entire basis of Hodges'
estimation opinion is misguided. The judge said he wouldn't base
his estimate of Garlock's asbestos liability on its settlement
history because plaintiffs lawyers forced Garlock into inflated
deals by withholding evidence of exposure to other companies'
products. The new memo, they said, not only shows that Garlock
itself possessed the exposure evidence it claimed to lack, but
also that the company didn't consider itself to be under coercion
at the time it reached deals with plaintiffs lawyers. The judge
should have seen those records at the estimation hearing,
Inselbuch said, but "Garlock didn't produce it."

Garlock also didn't produce this presumably exonerating evidence
in the underlying personal injury cases, even though both of the
cases went to trial and one resulted in a $36.6 million verdict
for the plaintiff, a former U.S. Navy submarine machinist named
Robert Treggett. Swett and Inselbuch said that's a mystery they
can't solve. ("Why Garlock did not use these resources . . . is a
matter best known to Garlock itself and to its lawyers," their
brief said. "Its failure to do so may reflect strategy, resource
allocation, complacency, or inadequate trial preparation.")

Garlock counsel Garland Cassada of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson told
me, however, that Caplin & Drysdale's theory -- that Garlock has
hidden evidence that plaintiffs were exposed to products from
other manufacturers -- "makes no sense": Why wouldn't Garlock want
to shift liability to another manufacturer? Moreover, he said, the
asbestos lawyers' supposed newly uncovered evidence contradicts
testimony from their side before Judge Hodges.

Cassada also rejected assertions that Garlock failed to comply
with Hodges' discovery orders, and said the company will address
the new brief's specific allegations in a filing with the court.
He called the asbestos lawyers' assertions "a desperate attempt to
change the dialogue."

The Chamber certainly doesn't seem worried that the new motion
will mitigate the impact of the original Garlock opinion. "Does
this impact legislative efforts? Absolutely not," said Harold Kim
of the Chamber's Institute of Legal Reform in an emailed
statement. "This motion does not change the fact that a federal
court found that the plaintiffs' lawyers misled the courts and
defendants as evidenced through their subsequent trust filings."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Death Caused by Exposure to Deadly Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Bould, writing for Burton Mail, reported that a pensioner
whose work meant he was exposed to asbestos for ten years in the
1960s died from industrial disease.

David Thomas, of Foston Avenue, Burton, in England, died on
February 27 at Burton's Queen's Hospital, aged 74.  An inquest
into his death was held at Burton Town Hall.  Mr Thomas has worked
at a number of companies in the Burton area from 1965 to 1975,
including Drakelow Power Station.  The inquest heard that his
death was related to asbestos exposure from that ten-year period.
Though he had worked in a number of jobs in his life, it was while
working in buildings with asbestos logging for companies based in
Burton, Newhall and Drakelow that he was exposed to the dust.

Pathologist, Doctor Peter Acland, who conducted a postmortem said
it was hard to detect asbestos in the body but mesothelioma was
almost invariably linked with asbestos exposure.

In reaching his verdict, Coroner Andrew Haigh said: "Mr Thomas was
a hard working man with numerous jobs. "Of particular concern were
four jobs he had in which he was exposed to asbestos dust.

"In his final years he developed lung and breathing problems. I
suspect this was caused by mesothelioma but it has not been
confirmed.

"This made it necessary for there to be a postmortem and
microscopic examination.

"I am well satisfied that this death was a result of mesothelioma,
which was a result of asbestos."

Mr Haigh recorded the cause of death as industrial disease.
He said: "Mesothelioma is a horrible condition that sometimes
arises years after exposure which happened in Mr Thomas' case."
Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK.

The material is often used in buildings. It was widely used for
insulation, flooring and roofing before its dangers were known.
It became clear after time that asbestos can cause serious damage
to people's lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Caused Lung Cancer Death of Bus Driver
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faye Greenwell, writing for North Devon Journal, reported that a
retired bus driver died of lung cancer, brought on by contact with
asbestos while working in the building trade, an inquest heard.

An inquest, at North Devon Magistrates' Court, to look into the
death of Meryn Gates, 69, who was originally from Sussex, England,
but at the time of his death was living near New Barnstaple Road,
in Ilfracombe.

The court heard that in April 2012 Mr Gates attended his local
doctors' surgery after he had been suffering from a dry cough for
eight weeks.  He was later diagnosed with a malignant
mesothelioma, a form of cancer that causes an abnormal amount of
fluid between thin layers of tissue lining on the outside of the
lung and the wall of the chest cavity.

A statement was read out from a friend of Mr Gates, Norma Hann.
She said that that Mr Gates was not sure of when he had come in
contact with asbestos but he had being in the building trade at
various points in his life.  He had received a pay-out from the
Government because of the asbestos exposure when he was diagnosed
with cancer.

Deputy coroner John Tomalin accepted the pathologist's cause of
death as being malignant mesothelioma after coming into contact
with asbestos while undertaking building work in Sussex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian City Fibro Policy Up for Comment
------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Liberal reported that the city council at Dubbo, in
Australia, has put a draft policy for dealing with deadly
substance asbestos on exhibition for public comment.

The document specifies the organisation's responsibilities to
minimise exposure to residents, the public and council employees
and has some information for "DIY" enthusiasts.

Asbestos is found in most homes built before the mid-1980s and can
cause deadly cancers if the fibres become airborne and are
inhaled.

Council environmental control manager Debbie Archer said council
has a dual role in minimising exposure to asbestos as far as
reasonably practical for residents and the public as well as
council's employees.

"The draft asbestos policy outlines the role of council and other
organisations in managing asbestos, the relevant regulatory powers
as well as general advice for residents on renovating homes that
may contain asbestos," Ms Archer said.

"There are five key areas of responsibility for council in
relation to minimising risk of asbestos exposure -- educating
residents, managing land, managing waste, regulator
responsibilities, and responsibility to workers.

The manager said health risks related to asbestos were low if it
were left undisturbed, but the risk rose when undertaking home
renovations or demolition work, particular in buildings
constructed before 1990.

"It is important to remain vigilant when dealing with potentially
hazardous material and the draft policy clearly articulates
council's responsibilities," Ms Archer said.

In 2012 then-local government minister Don Page said there had
already been at least 4700 deaths from mesothelioma, a type of
cancer associated with exposure to asbestos, in Australia since
records began in the early 1980s, with more than 25,000 more
expected to die from it over the next 40 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Africa Exposure Case Excluded in NYCAL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that Special Master Shelley Rossoff Olsen made two recommendations
regarding which cases would be included in the New York County
Asbestos Litigation's docket, approving one and denying the other.

According to the Pulsinelli recommendation from April 29, Olsen
wrote that she found sufficient nexus to New York City for
including the case in the NYCAL docket.

Plaintiff Dean Pulsinelli was allegedly exposed to asbestos from
helping his father, Joseph, clean up at the Texaco auto body shop
where is father worked.

At the time of the alleged exposure, the auto body shop, called
"Accurate" was located in either Queens County or Nassau County.

Pulsinelli's father testified that the body shop was about 10
miles away from their home in Springfield Gardens, N.Y., which is
located in Queens.  He testified that he was "pretty sure it was
in Queens, but I really don't know where it was."

Pulsinelli's father also described the auto body shop's location
as two towns west of Valley Stream, N.Y., which would locate it in
Queens and would provide the necessary nexus to New York City
required for inclusion in the NYCAL docket.

However, Olsen's second recommendation was based on a New York
City resident's asbestos exposure in another country.
According to the Bohlmann recommendation from April 30, Olsen
wrote that although plaintiff Valrie Bohlmann died as a New York
City resident, that does not provide enough nexus to include her
case in the extremis docket.

The defendants sought to prevent the case from being included in
NYCAL's extremis docket, claiming the decedent's alleged asbestos
exposure and diagnosis occurred entirely outside New York City.
They further argued that the mere fact that she was a New York
City resident at the time of her death is insufficient to create
nexus.

Bohlmann's only alleged asbestos exposure occurred in South Africa
before she moved to the U.S. in 1972. She lived in California from
1972 to 2003 before moving to New York.

However, the plaintiffs argued that it is "preposterous" to
exclude a New York City resident from the NYCAL extremis docket,
adding that they are unaware of a single NYCAL case in which a
resident was excluded because the plaintiff's exposure occurred
elsewhere.

Olsen concluded that arguments from both parties are beside the
point.  She adds that Bohlmann's right to a trial preference in
NYCAL is at issue here.

"There is no question that her estate can bring an action in New
York City, because her husband still resides here. But the
question which may, in fact, be one of first impression in NYCAL,
is whether residency alone can provide a sufficient nexus to New
York City for in extremis purposes? I find that it cannot," she
wrote.

Olsen agreed with the plaintiff that the various forum decisions
the defendants rely upon turn on an analysis of exposure to
determine whether this nexus is appropriate for non-resident
plaintiffs.

However, that does not mean a nexus can be established with no New
York City exposure.

"While previous forum decisions generally have addressed the
question of when a non-resident may be included in NYCAL's in
extremis docket, this decision holds that a resident can be
excluded," she concluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Warns About Risk of Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, "According to a recent
American Cancer Society report, 'The people with the heaviest
exposure are those who worked in asbestos industries, such as
shipbuilding, manufacturing, construction and insulation. Many of
these people recall working in thick clouds of asbestos dust, day
after day.' What we found most interesting about the report is
just how long it takes for mesothelioma to manifest itself within
the lung of a victim. We aren't talking overnight, in fact it
takes roughly 30 years according to the ACS study.

"Family members of asbestos workers can also be exposed to higher
levels of asbestos because the fibers can be carried home on the
worker's clothing which are then inhaled by others in the
household.

"Although use of asbestos has declined in the United States,
people are still exposed to asbestos in the workplace. As an
example in 2008, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
estimated that over one million employees in construction and
general industries face significant asbestos exposure on the job,
according to the ACS report."

For attribution purposes please refer to the American Cancer
Society website about asbestos exposure and mesothelioma:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/inthewo
rkplace/asbestos

The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, "Recently we had a
conversation with whom we consider to be one of the top consumer
attorneys in the United States. He was under the impression that
mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos was on its way out
because of federal laws that went into effect in the mid 1980s. He
was stunned to learn that, in our opinion, the actual number of US
citizens who die from mesothelioma was more than reported by the
CDC, because we believe that with the average age of a diagnosed
victim of mesothelioma being 72 years old, and the fact that most
victims of mesothelioma are initially misdiagnosed with pneumonia,
the true number of mesothelioma victims who succumb to this rare
form of cancer is north of 3,000 each year.

"Just as one example, we recently identified an individual in his
mid 60's who had initially been misdiagnosed with pneumonia, only
later to discover was mesothelioma. This person spent three months
working on a maintenance crew at a power plant on the Ohio River
when he was 19 years old. This was the only time in his life he
was exposed to asbestos on a daily basis."

What distinguishes the Mesothelioma Compensation Center from any
other group in the US is their commitment to making certain all
diagnosed victims of mesothelioma get the best possible financial
compensation for this rare form of cancer. The way they achieve
this is by making certain all diagnosed victims have instant
access to the nation's most skilled mesothelioma compensation
lawyers. For more information a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma
or their family members are urged to contact the Mesothelioma
Compensation Center anytime at 866-714-6466.
http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com

Information About Mesothelioma For Diagnosed Victims And Their
Families From The Mesothelioma Compensation Center:

According to the US Center for Disease Control, the average age
for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years old. Frequently
victims of mesothelioma are initially misdiagnosed with pneumonia.
This year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be diagnosed
with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to
asbestos.

High-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos include: US Navy
Veterans, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, manufacturing
workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, and
construction workers. Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred
in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's.

The states with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include:
Pennsylvania, Maine, New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Wyoming,
and Washington. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma
Victims Center receives diagnosed victims could be in any state
including California, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri,
Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, New
Mexico, Arizona Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska.

The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, "Before you hire a
mesothelioma attorney please call us at 866-714-6466, and compare
the qualifications of who we consider to be the nation's most
skilled mesothelioma attorneys to any other lawyer, or law firm.
When it comes to obtaining the best mesothelioma settlement, the
quality of the attorney matters, as we would like to explain."
http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, please visit the US
Centers For Disease Control's web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors Award Nearly $500,000 in Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Philadelphia jury has
awarded nearly US$500,000 at the conclusion of a trial in which
the plaintiff contended that exposure to asbestos in hot tops
caused the decedent to develop mesothelioma.

The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County
jury reached the verdict on May 20 following a trial presided over
by Judge Ramy I. Djerassi.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Mr Ed Ford, who
handled, installed and removed asbestos containing hot top
materials while working at the Armco Steel Corporation plant for
more than 30 years. The plaintiffs named Ferro Engineering Company
as a defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Seek to Reopen Garlock Estimation Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants has asked the federal court
overseeing Garlock's bankruptcy proceedings to reopen the record
of the estimation proceeding, arguing that the asbestos defendant
gave false testimony and failed to present evidence that would
contradict its position that plaintiff firms had been withholding
evidence of exposure to products manufactured by bankrupt
companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duty to Warn Extends to Nephew in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a California appeals court has held that a company's duty to
warn of asbestos dangers extended to an employee's nephew who
developed mesothelioma -- despite all other defendants in the case
being the nephew's own employers, where he was exposed to asbestos
occupationally.

The trial court ruled that defendant Pneumo Abex owed no duty to
the nephew, who alleges he was exposed to asbestos through contact
with his uncle's work clothing.

Abex argued that "no duty is owed [by an employer] to family
members of workers for take-home exposures."

However, the First Appellate District Court of Appeals disagreed,
saying plaintiff Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr., was a frequent visitor
of his uncle's household, spending several nights a week in the
home for several years.

Using factors from the Rowland decision, the appeals court
reversed the trial court's ruling.

Judge Stuart Pollak delivered the opinion. Judges Peter Siggins
and Martin Jenkins concurred.

At the onset of trial, Abex moved for a nonsuit, arguing it had no
duty to prevent Kesner's asbestos exposure. The Superior court
agreed, granting Abex's motion for nonsuit.

Kesner responded by filing an appeal. The appeals court expedited
consideration of the issue due to Kesner's declining health.

According to the May 15 opinion, Kesner was diagnosed with
perotineal mesothelioma in February 2011.  He filed an asbestos
lawsuit against several defendants. However, every defendant
except Abex consisted of companies Kesner worked for and was
occupationally exposed to asbestos on their premises. All of those
claims have been resolved. Only Abex remains.

Kesner claims his uncle was an Abex employee from 1973 to 2007 and
was exposed to asbestos while on the job.

Between 1973 and 1979, Kesner was a frequent guest in his uncle's
home, staying the night there several days a week.

Kesner claims his uncle would come home and, while still in his
dusty work clothes, play with Kesner or sleep near him, which
contributed to his development of mesothelioma.

Pollak wrote that this case involves the "asserted liability of a
negligence manufacturer to a plaintiff for injuries arising as a
result of the plaintiff's exposure to a harmful substance through
contact with the manufacturer's employee away from the
manufacturer's premises."

He added that individuals still have a duty to use ordinary care
for their own safety and must use reasonable care in certain
circumstances.

The appeals court used the Rowland decision to analyze this take-
home asbestos case, saying a number of factors must be considered:

-The foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff;

-A degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury;

-The closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct
and the injury suffered;

-The moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct;

-The policy of preventing future harm;

-The extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the
community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting
liability for breach; and

-The availability, cost and the prevalence of insurance for the
risk involved.

Pollak noted that considering the Rowland factors as they relate
to negligence claims does not lead to the conclusion that
employers responsible for asbestos-exposures, failing to warn of
asbestos dangers or failure to provide protective measures are not
responsible to any nonemployee foreseeably affected by the
asbestos exposure.

The appeals court made it clear that finding a duty to warn is not
the same thing as a finding of negligence.

However, he added that contrary to its stance on negligence
claims, the Rowland decision applies differently on duty-to-warn
claims. The court found that the first three Rowland factors
relate to and support extension of an employer's duty to warn
beyond its employees.

"As a general matter, harm to others resulting from secondary
exposure to asbestos dust is not unpredictable," Pollak wrote.
"The harm to third parties that can arise from a lack of
precautions to control friable asbestos that may accumulate on
employees' work clothing is generally foreseeable."

The fourth Rowland factor, relating to moral blame, also typically
supports extension of an employer's duty to warn, he added.

"Assuming, as we must, the truth of Kesner's allegation that Abex
was aware of the risks to those exposed directly or indirectly to
the asbestos dust generated in its facility and took no steps to
avoid those risks, certainly such indifference would be morally
blameworthy," he wrote.

The Rowland decision also addresses prevention of future harm for
other potential asbestos victims.

The appeals court notes that holding an employer responsible for
avoiding injuries to employees' families who may foreseeably be
harmed by take-home asbestos exposures can help prevent harm to
others in the future.

The next Rowland factor -- the extent of the burden to the
defendant and the consequences to the community if the court
imposes too broad a duty -- has led the court to limit the reach
of liability in the past. The appeals court recognizes that
stretching liability too far can become unreasonable and
burdensome.

"It would be an entirely unreasonably burden on all human activity
if the defendant who has endangered one man were to be compelled
to pay for the lacerated feelings of every other person disturbed
by reason of it, including every bystander shocked at an accident,
and every distant relative of the person injured, as well as his
friends," the opinion states.

As a result, the courts determined a limit was needed on whom the
duty of reasonably care extends. Because Kesner spent so much time
near his uncle, the court held that it was reasonable to extend
duty to the plaintiff.

As for the last Rowland factor, previous courts held that the
threat of unlimited liability "could restrict the ability of
employees to obtain insurance, while individuals may obtain
insurance covering medical expenses incurred as a result of
illness arising from toxic exposure."

However, the appeals court made it clear that there is no reason
to believe that manufacturers cannot obtain insurance coverage to
protect against their duty to warn liability.

Analyzing each of the Rowland factors, the appeals court concluded
that Abex still held duty-to-warn liability, noting that
foreseeability of harm is the most significant factor to consider.

He added that there is a high level of foreseeability of harm from
take-home asbestos exposure, especially when Kesner's contact with
his uncle's dusty work clothing was not incidental.

The weight of the foreseeability factor is strengthened, Pollak
explained, when the moral blame factor is also attributable to
Abex allegedly disregarding a known risk to others and the need to
prevent future harm.

"In weighing these competing considerations, the balance falls far
short of terminating liability at the door of the employer's
premises," Pollak wrote.

Pollak explained that extending Abex's duty of care to Kesner does
not threaten employers with potential liability for "intangible
injuries" that could be alleged by an unlimited number of
claimants, because mesothelioma claims cannot be claimed by
everyone.

Pollak stated that the court reached its conclusion that Abex's
duty of care extended to Kesner on the assumption that Kesner was
a long-term guest in his uncle's home and had extensive contact
with his uncle's dusty work clothing.

However, the appeals court said it makes no opinion for cases
other than the one on hand, as there are factual questions needed
for future determination

"As to such persons, the foreseeability of harm is substantial. As
to persons whose contact with an employer's worker is only casual
or incidental, the foreseeability of harm and the closeness of the
connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's
injury may be so minimal as to produce a different balance of the
Rowland factors," he wrote. "We hold that there is a duty under
the circumstances alleged in the present case, but we do not
address other circumstances that are not before us."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Miner in Penkridge Appeals for Help
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Marshall, writing for Staffordshire Newsletter, reported
that the heartbroken widow from Penkridge, England, of an ex-miner
is urging his former colleagues to come forward amid fears more
could have been done to protect him from deadly coal dust.

Ron Ball, from Market Street, died aged 80 in August 2011, the day
after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer,
often caused by exposure to asbestos.

Mr Ball had worked for the National Coal Board at Cannock's
Littleton Pit from 1951 to 1960, where he had been a cage winder.
He then worked at Cramic Aircraft Limited in Tipton in the Black
Country.

His wife Joan, 82, has now instructed industrial disease lawyers
at Irwin Mitchell in her battle for answers to the death of her
husband.  And she is now appealing for any of his ex-colleagues to
come forward with information to help with the investigations.

Mrs Ball said: "As mesothelioma was not diagnosed until the day
before Ron died, he didn't have any morphine or strong pain relief
and at the end he was suffering from severe chest pain and really
struggling to breathe.

"It is such a horrible illness and it shocked me how quickly Ron
declined

"I now hope as many of his former work-mates as possible will help
the team at Irwin Mitchell investigate if more could potentially
have been done to protect him."

Anyone with information should contact Iain Shoolbred on 0121 214
5446.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brisbane Woman Defies Mesothelioma Prognosis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhian Deutrom, writing for The Sunday Mail, reported that Karen
Churchill has lived a decade longer than anyone predicted.

In May, her doctor gave her two months to live but her fight for
life is far from over.  Karen was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a
rare form of cancer caused by airborne asbestos fibres, when she
was just 38 years old.

More than a decade later, the devoted mother-of-three sits in her
Victoria Point home, on Brisbane's bayside, determined to survive
until Christmas for her children Bodie, Ashley and Taylah.

"Each new day feels like 10 years to me because it's another day
that I wasn't supposed to have," Karen says. "That's another day I
get to see my kids."

She smiles and looks away, adjusting the tube that runs, like a
lifeline, from her nose to an oxygen machine.

"My big thrill now is to put on a bottle (of oxygen) and go down
to the shops for a coffee and some lunch," she chuckles.

"It's those simple things I look forward to," she says. "When the
phone rings, I think, 'Yes, this is one of the kids', and it
usually is".

But Karen's tragic story began like many other unsuspecting
Australians'.  The youngest of four children, Karen lived her life
in the shadow of her three boisterous brothers.  When she was four
years old, her father Clive decided to renovate the family's
Laidley home using asbestos sheeting. "As the only girl, I'd have
my little broom and dustpan and I'd follow him around, sweeping up
all the dust," she says.

Vice-president of the Asbestos Related Disease Support Society
Queensland Andrew Ramsay says asbestos sheeting was used in most
homes built before 1990.

"It was cheap, strong and water proof but when you cut, drilled or
broke it you were exposing yourself to dangerous asbestos fibres,"
he says.

Once inhaled, it can lie dormant in victims for 10-50 years before
the onset of disease.

"It's not like a broken arm. You can't see it for many years but
when it gets you, it bites hard," Mr Ramsay says.

For Karen, the first signs didn't show until the summer of 2004
while celebrating her son's 13th birthday.

"I was getting things ready but I was getting more and more
puffed, which wasn't like me," she says.

Weeks later, Karen was given four to six months to live. Enduring
four major operations, months of chemotherapy and two rounds of
invasive radiation therapy, Karen has defied the prognosis of some
of the most experienced doctors in the field.

The cancer has entered her reproductive system, destroyed her lung
capacity and spread across her major organs.

"Anything they could find to do to me, I put myself through it
because I had to see my kids live," she says.

Every wall in Karen's home is studded with photos of her greatest
accomplishments: her children.  She proudly recalls the day she
took Bodie to get his driver's licence.

"I sat there and thought, "I just saw my first child get his
driver's licence and I was never to see that"," she says.

These moments with her children make her fight harder each day.

"I didn't want to miss Taylah's formal for anything, so David
brought some clothes into hospital for me and I got tizzied up,"
she says.

"He put me in a wheelchair and we went to her formal. I saw her
walk down the aisle with her partner."

"It meant the world to me, but every other parent takes these
things for granted."

Mr Ramsay said he had seen more than 100 ARDSSQ members die in the
past year.

"Mesothelioma is a cancer that takes no prisoners, so to have a
woman who has survived for so long is just brilliant."

For Mr Ramsay, immediate awareness-raising is vital to prepare
Australians for an epidemic of asbestos-related disease. "People
treat asbestos like it won't hurt them but it is not something to
be played with," he said.

Last month Karen's doctor told her she was no longer a viable
candidate for further treatment.

"I said, 'I don't believe you, I've got longer than that'," she
says.

As she has done for more than a decade, she has set a goal to
survive until at least Christmas.

Karen's thirst for life serves as an inspiration as more people
are diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases each year.

For those people, Karen has a simple message:

"Don't give up, do everything you can. Don't let anyone say
there's nothing that can be done."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Town Council Wants Cleanup Rolling Again
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Moore, writing for Press-Republican, reported that a pile
of rubble from a demolished building in Mooers, New York, hasn't
budged since the state halted cleanup in early April.  But
officials say the Town Council will likely vote at its June 10
meeting on appropriating funds to get the process rolling again.
And there has been plenty of action behind the scenes, they say,
to craft a plan to safely clear the lot at the corner of Route 11
and Maple Street of the asbestos-ridden debris.

"It's like five bureaucracies coordinating," Mooers Building Code
Officer Jess Dixon said.

That's an army of effort compared to the April action, when Town
Supervisor Jeff Menard took it upon himself to hire Rouses Point
contractor Randy Bedard of Bedard's Excavation to haul the rubble
away.

Menard bypassed the Town Council to get the work going, justifying
that decision with a resolution passed earlier that gave him
permission "to move forward with the assistance of (Town Attorney
Thomas Murnane), on the cleanup process," according to meeting
minutes.

NO TARP

About two days into the work, the State Department of Labor
ordered it halted; a few weeks later, samples taken by that agency
identified asbestos, which is a known carcinogen.

And then, upon notification of that fact by Dixon, Northeastern
Clinton Central School officials shut down nearby Mooers
Elementary School out of caution, since asbestos can be carried on
the breeze.

After air-quality testing, classes resumed.

And town officials said the debris would be secured by a special
tarp while a plan was forged for its proper removal.

That tarp was not installed.

"It's better to clean it up and get it out of there than cap it,"
Dixon said.

ASBESTOS ENGINEER

That decision, he said, came of consultation with asbestos-removal
expert LVI Environmental Services Inc. of Massena and Plattsburgh
firm KAS.

An asbestos engineer is aboard, Dixon said, and a protocol in now
in place on the cleanup, air monitoring and other safety measures.

In the meantime, the Mooers Volunteer Fire Department has misted
the pile a few times on very dry days, he said, which is standard
for debris containing asbestos to keep it from becoming airborne.

"We were lucky to have all this rain," Dixon said.

'OWNER CAN'T PAY'

The town now has the variance from the state required to start
cleanup.  The cost will be added to property owner Eloi Duguay's
taxes.

The building, which partially collapsed on Jan 11 then was razed,
had been condemned before the Quebec man bought it.  Dixon said
Duguay emailed him to say he can't take on or pay for the cleanup.

The town has sought help from Congressman Bill Owens in acquiring
grant funding, perhaps through the Environmental Protection
Agency, Town Supervisor Jeff Menard said.

$80 PER TON

Menard said they didn't yet know what the final cost would be,
though he'd had estimates of $48,000 and $24,000 from two
contractors on the rubble removal.

Added to that will be LVI and KAS's fees, the $3,172 bill for the
emergency demolition required when the building collapsed and the
$80-per-ton fee at Casella Waste Systems Inc. in Franklin County,
which is set up to take asbestos, Menard said.  He is waiting to
see if the town will be fined by the state for failing to follow
asbestos-removal regulations.

"They haven't said anything about it, but before the board
meeting, I want to know."

Both Menard and Dixon said the State Department of Labor was not
especially helpful when asked for guidance before the supervisor
hired Bedard Excavation.

That agency did not respond to several attempts by the Press-
Republican asking for information on the Mooers situation.

'AFTER THE FACT'

Menard thought Bedard might be in trouble for tackling the job
without proper certification.

"I think we're both in trouble," Bedard said.

Menard told the Press-Republican that Bedard had certification to
work with asbestos; Bedard said it had lapsed and the town
supervisor knew it.

"After the fact," Menard said. "After he started digging."

DUMPED ON PRIVATE LAND

Dixon confirmed the rumor that some of the rubble was hauled to a
private property on Hemmingford Road and dumped there.

"That was the concern of the school because it was hauled right by
(there)," he said.

He declined to identify the owner of that property but said the
spot is well out of the way of the public.

"It's in a safer place, and it's not going to bother anyone right
now."

He was awaiting word from the State Department of Environmental
Conservation on what should be done about that.

HINDSIGHT

Menard acknowledges that he shouldn't have hired Bedard on his
own. From now on, though, he will work with the council to make
town decisions, he said.

"I just didn't think it was necessary to call a special meeting,"
he said. "Seventeen years as a town judge, I made my own decisions
-- maybe that followed through a little bit; maybe it's just an
excuse.

"I don't know."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Jailed After Fibro Roof Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that a businessman has been jailed for 12
months after his company illegally supplied roofing panels
containing asbestos, which were so fragile that a construction
worker fell through one of them and later died.

Company director Robert Marsh's offences came to light after a 56-
year-old construction worker from South Staffordshire, who was
roofing a barn using the panels, fell through the fragile
material.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found that 64-
year-old Marsh, sole director of RM Developments (2005) Ltd of
Newport, had supplied pre-used roofing sheets containing white
asbestos to a farming partnership building a barn in Frankley,
Worcestershire. During a three-day hearing at Worcester Crown
Court it was heard that after Marsh supplied the roofing sheets,
the partnership hired steelworker Tony Podmore to use the
materials to build the barn.

But during the final phase of its construction on June 8, 2011, Mr
Podmore, of Calf Heath, near Wolverhampton, fell through the
fragile asbestos cement roof sheets, landing on the concrete floor
more than six metres below. He later died of his injuries in
hospital.

The farm partnership had agreed to pay GBP4,000 for what they
thought would be substantial roofing material.

However Marsh supplied poor quality, second-hand roof panels that
had cost him nothing.

As he had paid just GBP250 for transport, he stood to make a
profit of GBP3,750 on the roof alone.

The court was told that after the fall, Marsh tried to persuade
witnesses to hide the sheets that he had supplied telling one:
"We'll all take the fall for this."

He also told Mr Podmore's daughter that her father had fallen from
the roof edge rather than through the fragile roof sheets and
later tried to persuade Mr Podmore's relatives not to report the
incident to the HSE.

Marsh, of Station Road, Hornet, near Market Drayton, changed his
plea to guilty on the first day of his trial to a health and
safety charge and a charge relating to the safety of using white
asbestos.

As well as the 12-month prison sentence he was disqualified from
being a director for six years and ordered to pay GBP10,000 costs.

Passing sentence, Judge Michael Cullum said Mr Marsh's actions
were 'wholly reprehensible' adding that he acted out of 'selfish
self-interest' to maximize profit at the expense of health and
safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Fibro Sufferers Face Compensation Blow
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenock Telegraph reported that many people in Inverclyde,
Scotland, suffering from asbestos-related illnesses could lose out
on compensation because of proposed changes to the law, it's
feared.

The Scottish Government's Court Reform Bill -- which is currently
being considered by parliament -- would mean some cases would be
downgraded from the Court of Session to sheriff courts, or a new
specialist personal injury court.  That would mean claimants would
not be automatically entitled to the service of an advocate, when
insurance companies contesting claims would always hire one to
fight their corner.  This could put claimants at a disadvantage,
Greenock and Inverclyde MSP Duncan McNeil said.

Mr McNeil said: "This is an unintentional outcome of this proposed
legislation.

"Given the number of people in Inverclyde who suffer from
illnesses related to exposure to asbestos, I am very concerned
they could come up against an uneven playing field in court -- and
could lose out on compensation."

The MSP's worries are shared by 60-year-old Neil Miller of
Greenock, who has a condition known as pleural plaques, which he
believes was caused by being exposed to asbestos through working
in the shipyards and the building industry.

Mr Miller, who is married with a son and a daughter, found out
three years ago that he had the scar tissue on the outside of the
lungs after going into hospital for a triple by-pass operation
following a heart attack.

He said: "The doctors saw the spots on my lungs.

"I would never have known I had pleural plaques.

"Thousands of people don't know they have it.

"It hasn't affected me yet but I'm worried that it could lead on
to something more serious and that the planned change in the law
would affect my chances of compensation."

Scottish Government justice secretary Kenny MacAskill has defended
the proposed changes.  He says they are designed to ensure that
cases are heard in the appropriate court to reduce unnecessary
delays and disproportionate costs to all litigants.

Mr MacAskill said: "We do not believe this will result in asbestos
cases where insurers have access to counsel and pursuers are
denied access.

"We believe the reforms will provide benefits to all court users
by ensuring cases are heard in an efficient and effective court
system."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Removal in New Zealand Worried Family
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Mathewson, writing for The Press, reported that a
Christchurch, New Zealand, community board chairwoman has got into
a spat with a demolition company over her concerns about their
handling of debris from a house containing asbestos.

Avondale resident Andrea Cummings wrote on her Facebook page that
she was shocked to see workers wearing hazardous materials suits
and masks loading demolition material into a bin next door to her
home.

No-one had told her what was happening and she feared the material
contained asbestos, potentially putting her family "only 3 metres
away" at risk.

A WorkSafe New Zealand spokesman told The Press it visited the
demolition site and reviewed a video posted online by Cummings.

"On the basis of the information that we've got, we're satisfied
that the work is being undertaken appropriately," he said.

Cummings said the company had tried to bully her into withdrawing
her concerns.  She is the chairwoman of the Burwood-Pegasus
Community Board, but said her comments were made "as someone who
wants to advocate for the community".  The posts were made on her
personal Facebook page but were visible to the public.

Pro Tranz Ltd owner Gerard Daldry said the company had not bullied
Cummings but wanted her to apologise for making public comments
that were "completely not true".

"We've bent over backwards to help her. What she has done is
actually quite detrimental to the whole thing."

Pro Tranz was required to notify only WorkSafe New Zealand when it
came across asbestos, but he agreed the company should have told
Cummings about what was happening next door to her.

"Normally we do. That was probably a shortfall on our behalf,"
Daldry said.

Asbestos specialists removed most of the contaminated material
before demolition work started but some under the floor had not
been accessible until the top of the building was removed.

Daldry said the bin near Cummings' fence was for general
demolition material, not material containing asbestos.  It had all
been dampened down with a hose to minimise any dust before it was
picked up and moved into the bin.

People had a "right to worry" about asbestos, he said, but
Cummings and her family were never at any risk of exposure.  He
said she should have discussed her concerns with him or WorkSafe
New Zealand rather than posting publicly on Facebook.

"I don't want this to have an adverse effect on the industry.
People need to be better informed. "Let's make this something
that's a learning curve for everybody," Daldry said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bnei Brak Fibro Crisis Closes Bldgs., Stores
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Levi, writing for Israel National News, reported that a
major fire in Bnei Brak may have a long-term environmental impact
on one of Israel's busiest business district.

Environmental Ministry officials said that people in the area of
the Bnei Brak Industrial Zone, one of Israel's largest, should
stay at least 50 meters away from the BSR Towers, because of the
danger of burning asbestos.

According to officials, inspectors have discovered a large amount
of asbestos in a warehouse next to the building. The 24 and 27
story towers themselves were built in 2004, when building with
asbestos was illegal. However, the buildings were constructed next
to a large abandoned warehouse, which was full of asbestos.

Asbestos has been shown to cause a myriad of diseases, including
cancer -- and is at its most dangerous when it is burning, as
vapors easily seep into the air supply and are breathed in by
unsuspecting victims.

A major fire broke out in the warehouse, causing the towers and
the area near the warehouse to be evacuated -- and environmental
officials said that there was still too much asbestos in the air
to allow anyone to return to work. Officials actually expanded the
evacuation zone, banning anyone from coming within 50 meters, and
recommending that people stay several hundred meters away from the
site of the fire, if possible.

Windows should remain shut and air conditioners off as well, they
said. Fire officials said they had issued orders to keep stores
and businesses in the area closed for the time being.

According to the fire department, parts of the building are still
smoldering, and it may take days to completely douse the fire. It
is not clear when the asbestos threat will pass, officials added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Impact of Garlock Ruling on Defense Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that six months after the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy
decision shook the ground in the asbestos tort system by revealing
plaintiffs attorneys who were ruled to have withheld information
in an effort to reach higher payouts, two defense attorneys have
published an article in For The Defense addressing how important
they feel the bankruptcy ruling is for asbestos defense attorneys.

Mark Behrens and Cary Silverman of Shook, Hardy & Bacon co-wrote
the article titled, "The Garlock Bankruptcy Order and What it
Means for Defense Counsel."

"The Garlock decision should spark more intense judicial scrutiny
of the relationship between plaintiffs' asbestos bankruptcy trust
fund claims and trot lawsuits against solvent defendants," they
wrote. "The decision is a must-read for asbestos defense counsel
and should be brought to the attention of judges in asbestos cases
and policymakers."

They add that the ruling should do everything from assisting
defense attorneys seeking access to asbestos trust claim
submissions as well as fueling both jurisdictional and national
efforts to require bankruptcy trust transparency through case
management orders or even federal laws.

In a Jan. 10 order, Judge George Hodges of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued
an order estimating Garlock Sealing Technology's aggregate
liability for current and future asbestos claims.

Behrens and Silverman explained in their article how the decision
"is likely to have far-reaching consequences for asbestos
defendants in the tort system and perhaps other companies that
enter bankruptcy due to asbestos-related liabilities."

During the bankruptcy hearing, Garlock brought evidence
demonstrating that the last ten years of its participation in the
asbestos litigation system "was infected by the manipulation of
exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers."

After Garlock brought extensive discovery revealing that asbestos
attorneys had been withholding asbestos exposure evidence while
pursuing claims against Garlock, Hodges ordered the amount
sufficient to satisfy the company's asbestos liability to be $125
million -- which is roughly $1 billion less than what plaintiffs'
representatives felt was proper.

Garlock, which produced and sold asbestos-containing gaskets and
gasket materials used in pipes and valves, was a fairly small
player in the asbestos litigation system and typically settled
claims brought against it.

Hodges wrote in his order that Garlock's products exhibited "a
relatively low exposure to a limited population." The Sixth
Circuit Court of North Carolina compared the exposures to a bucket
of water as to the ocean's volume.

However, as more companies filed for bankruptcy, including
virtually all thermal insulation manufacturers, Garlock found
itself involved in more lawsuits and was forced to pay higher
settlement values.

"This occurrence was a result of the effort by some plaintiffs and
their lawyers to withhold evidence of exposure to other asbestos
products and to delay filing claims against bankrupt defendants'
asbestos trusts until after obtaining recoveries from Garlock,"
Hodges stated in his opinion.

"In this new environment, where plaintiffs' counsel could control
exposure evidence, Garlock was put at a major disadvantage,"
Behrens and Silverman wrote.

By June 2010, Garlock's insurance was exhausted and the company
filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy, seeking to establish a
trust to resolve all current and future asbestos claims against
it.

Behrens and Silverman explained that Hodges' order documenting the
actions by asbestos attorneys draws back the curtain on the
practices of plaintiffs' attorneys.

In an effort to bring out the truth, Hodges conducted a lengthy
evidentiary hearing and ordered full discovery on 15 cases and
partial discovery on more than 200 cases, revealing the abuse and
finding that roughly 200 settled cases for large sums withheld
exposure evidence.

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse," Hodges stated. "But that is not necessary
because the startling pattern of misrepresentation that has been
shown is sufficiently persuasive.

Behrens and Silverman held that the most important finding was
that evidence Garlock needed in order to show claimants' injuries
were a result of insulation products "disappeared" after the
insulation companies filed for bankruptcy.

"While it is not suppression of evidence for a plaintiff to be
unable to identify exposures, it is suppression of evidence for a
plaintiff to be unable to identify exposure in the tort case, but
then later to be able to identify it in Trust claims," Hodges
stated. "It is that practice that prejudiced Garlock in the tort
system."

Hodges detailed several cases in his order showing the extensive
abuse Garlock endured.

In one example, a California jury rendered a $9 million verdict
against Garlock after a claimant failed to admit any asbestos
exposure from amphibole insulation, claiming that 100 percent of
his work was on gaskets.

However, further discovery in the bankruptcy court revealed that
the plaintiffs' lawyers filed 14 trust claims after the verdict
was entered, including several against amphibole insulation
manufacturers. In total, the plaintiffs' attorneys failed to
disclose that the claimant had been exposed to 22 other asbestos
products.

However, there were several honest cases involving Garlock where
plaintiffs' attorneys admitted to filing trust claims. Of those
cases, three trials concluded in defense verdicts and one trial
only found Garlock two percent liable.

Behrens and Silverman believe that Hodges' Garlock order should be
required reading for all defense counsel and judges participating
in asbestos litigation.

"No matter what the final outcome will be in the Garlock
bankruptcy, the facts uncovered and noted by Judge Hodges in his
opinion after his detailed review of the evidence should not
change," they wrote.

"Defense counsel should make a priority of finding ways to educate
judges in asbestos cases about the Garlock ruling. It may not be
intuitive for a busy state court judge in a tort case to research
and read an opinion by a federal bankruptcy judge in Charlotte,"
they continued. "Opportunities may arise with respect to the
admissibility of low dose plaintiffs' expert causation and with
respect to discovery of trust claim submissions."

The authors explain that defense attorneys in future asbestos
cases can use Hodges' ruling in low dose exposure cases. The order
can also be used to encourage orders and laws requiring plaintiffs
to produce trust claim forms, they said.

"The Garlock ruling demonstrates how aggressively seeking
information about plaintiffs' claimed asbestos exposures can more
reliably uncover which asbestos products actually caused a
plaintiff's harm. By uncovering a plaintiff's full exposure
history, defense counsel are better able to cross-examine
plaintiffs and uncover attempts by unscrupulous plaintiffs to tell
inconsistent exposure histories to trusts and juries," they wrote.

"Jurors are given the tools to reach fully informed decisions
about which companies caused a plaintiff's harm. Settlements
values will also better reflect a defendant's fair share of
responsibility for a plaintiff's injury."

In fact, several asbestos litigation jurisdictions have already
either adopted case management orders (CMOS) or passed
transparency laws requiring plaintiffs to produce trust claim
forms that have already been filed and information on potential
trust claims. Wisconsin is the most recent state to pass a law
requiring such information be disclosed before a trial can
proceed.

"With the Garlock decision illustrating the improper failure of
plaintiffs to disclose trust claims, defendants have more
ammunition to convince courts to approve CMOs that require
plaintiffs to file and produce  all trust claims before trial,"
Behrens and Silverman wrote.

They add that the Garlock ruling also provides support for the
Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act, or FACT Act. Both a
House and Senate version of the bill currently sits in the U.S.
Senate.

The FACT Act, if passed, would require asbestos bankruptcy trusts
to release quarterly reports providing information on claimants
who seek payments for asbestos exposure.

The article notes how Hodges order revealing "significant" abuse
surrounding asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is "making waves in
the legal profession and mainstream media."

Behrens and Silverman wrote that the Jan. 10 ruling won't be the
only game-changer in asbestos litigation created by the Garlock
bankruptcy proceedings, as "more shake waves may be on the
horizon."

The day before Hodges released his opinion, Garlock filed four
adversary complaints under seal in the bankruptcy court alleging
conspiracy, fraud and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) claims against several of the law firms
and attorneys that participated in the documented abuse.

Garlock also filed a lawsuit against another plaintiffs' law firm
in the bankruptcy court alleging fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims for allegedly
withholding exposure evidence in tort cases.

Behrens and Silverman also mentioned Legal Newsline's motion to
unseal the trial testimony and exhibits.

Attorneys for Legal Newsline appealed Hodge's decision to close
the courtroom several times. Attorneys are challenging the
decision under a First Amendment claim in district court.

Furthermore, a group of defendants headed by Ford Motor Company
are in the process of trying to obtain access to Rule 2019
statements in the case, which require lawyers to identify clients
with the claims against a bankruptcy company as well as the nature
of those claims.

The group of defendants seeks the sealed information because they
believe they may have been also victimized by the withheld
evidence.

Hodges granted their request before staying the order granting
access pending an appeal by the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants.

Both the motion to unseal trial evidence and the motion for access
to Rule 2019 statements are pending and could provide more
landmark decisions for asbestos litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Orange OKs Add'l $26K For Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Kiste Nyberg, writing for The Alternative Press, reported that
removal of asbestos continues to bog down the renovation at the
Village Hall, in South Orange, New Jersey, with the Board of
Trustees approving an additional $262,561 for abatement and
extending the removal deadline to July 1.

The board voted, 5-1, on June 2 to approve the change orders and
additional compensation for the contractor, Tricon. Trustee Sheena
Collum voted no. She explained that her "no" vote was a vote
against the project as a whole, not the change orders
specifically. She wants the board to reconsider selling Village
Hall.

That was $80,000 less than what was originally requested by
Tricon, according to Village Administrator Barry Lewis Jr.
Tricon's original bid for the project was $194,000, considerably
below the next lowest bidder. The change orders themselves are
more than the original bid.

"Tricon came in in good faith," Lewis said. "These conditions were
unforeseeable, and any contractor that took the job would have
been seeking compensation . . . at least this much, if not more."

Most of the additional work involves removing contaminated plaster
and debris that could not be seen in the initial assessment of the
building, according to Lewis. For example, the ceiling over the
dais in the main meeting room had been plastered over, so it
wasn't until that first layer was removed that the problem was
identified, he explained.

In another case, according to Lewis, sheetrock behind the elevator
lift was covering contaminated plaster.

"Obviously, any time you get changes, it's disappointing," he
said. "But you would be naive to think you could open up a 120-
year-old building and not get some surprises." Lewis said the only
other options available to the village would be to dispute the
change order requests, which would be costly in terms of time and
money, or to halt all work and put the project back out to bid.

The change orders were reviewed by Lewis, project engineer Kevin
Herrighty, construction manager Mitchell Fritz and village counsel
Steve Rother.

With the change orders, Tricon would be paid $428,091.60 for its
work. Lewis noted that some of the work Tricon will do would have
been done by the general contractor in the next phase of
construction, such as removing a staircase and removing the
elevator.

Trustee Deborah Davis Ford sought assurances that there would be
no more change orders for the asbestos removal. "I need to be
assured that this is it," she said. "That every possible surprise
has been identified."

Lewis said, "That's pretty safe to say on this," noting that the
building has been entirely opened up. "They've exposed everything
there is to expose."

A detailed memo from Lewis describing the work can be found here.

The estimated cost of the two-year renovation project is $6.5
million, according to Lewis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sea Cadets' Future Secured After Fibro Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Thorp, writing for The Bolton News, reported that Bolton,
England, Sea Cadets, which came close to being shut down last
year, has been saved.

The future of the unit was put under threat in June 2013 when
members were told that the group's headquarters in Castle Street
was closing because asbestos had been found inside.

But after removing the asbestos, Bolton Council, which owns the
building, has now agreed a new 25-year lease with the sea cadets
on a "peppercorn rent" which will secure the unit's long-term
future.

When the asbestos was originally found, the council said a survey
carried out identified only small amounts of the substance in a
part of the building that was closed.

The council said it posed no risk to cadets, but the Marine
Society and Sea Cadets charity insisted on closing the premises
until work to clear the asbestos was carried out.

Contractors removed the asbestos by autumn last year, with the
cadets returning to the building by the end of the 2013.

The new lease agreement not only provides the unit with a place to
meet and train for the next 25 years, with an option to renew
after that, but it gives them the ability to access funding in
order to renovate the listed building, with some improvement work
having already taken place.

John Holmes, 1st Lieutenant of the Bolton Sea Cadets, said the
news would make a "massive difference" to everyone involved in the
unit.  He added: "This has completely changed the way we all feel
about being part of the cadets.

"For a long time we didn't know if we would be here the next week
but the security we now have means we can plan for the future. It
is a huge relief. To go from such a precarious position to such a
good one is amazing.

"We came very close to closing but now the unit will get better
and better with the opportunities we can offer to young people."

Mr Holmes praised Bolton Council for the work done to help the
cadets through the tough time.  He said: "They have gone out of
their way to help us and we are very grateful."

A spokesman for Bolton Council said: "We are delighted that a
long-term lease for the building has now been agreed with the Sea
Cadets which gives them security of tenure and enables them to
access grant funding for improvements and ren-ovation to this
listed building."

The premises will be officially handed over to the Bolton Sea
Cadets at a special presentation evening at the Castle Street
base.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scope of Subpoenas on Bankr. Trusts Limited
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California federal court
has limited the language of a subpoena served by John Crane on a
number of asbestos bankruptcy trusts, ruling that the defendant
cannot seek confidential settlement information from those
entities.

In the June 2 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California did find that John Crane could seek access
to claim forms and other documents submitted with the bankruptcy
trusts, however.

John Crane served subpoenas on a number of asbestos bankruptcy
trusts, requesting information relating to any and all
correspondence between the various offices and the plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Out of Step on Fibro, Ministry Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reported that a discussion document on
regulating work involving asbestos describes New Zealand as being
out of step with other countries, including Australia and Europe.

The paper, which outlines proposals for new health and safety
regulations, has been released by the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment.

The Health and Safety at Work Act discussion document's criticisms
included what it said was a lack of consistency in how and where
asbestos samples were taken.  It said the current regulations did
not say who decided whether asbestos was "friable", meaning it was
in dust form which could become airborne and inhaled.

The document also noted that because maintenance workers were
generally not trained in asbestos, they often did not recognise it
on a work site and could transfer particles to their vehicle or
homes.

Submissions on the discussion document close on 18 July.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texaco, Chevron Named in Suit Over Man's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hart, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported that
Port Arthur residents are suing Texaco after their family member
died from asbestos-related disease.

Wanda Wallace, surviving spouse of Herman Wallace, and Dana Bodden
and Damon Wallace, surviving children of Herman Wallace, filed a
lawsuit May 28 in the Jefferson County District Court against
Texaco Inc. and Chevron USA Inc., citing asbestos exposure.

The plaintiffs claim Herman Wallace used and was exposed to
asbestos while he worked for the defendants.

According to the suit, Herman was diagnosed as having asbestosis,
an asbestos-related disease, which resulted in Herman dying a
painful and terrible death Oct. 9, 2012.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and court costs.  They are
being represented in the case by Beaumont attorney J. Keith Hyde
of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm LLP.

Jefferson County District Court Case No. E195-751


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Assistant Appeals to Former Colleagues
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo reported that a former school assistant
diagnosed with a terminal asbestos-related cancer is appealing to
former colleagues to help an investigation into her exposure.

Catherine Robson, 59, from Sacriston, County Durham, in England,
was diagnosed last Christmas with mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lining of the lungs caused by asbestos exposure.  She has now
instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate.

Mrs Robson worked at Bullion Lane Primary School, Chester-le-
Street, from September 1990 to July 1991 and again from November
1994 to March 2008.

Mrs Robson, then known as Catherine Foster, recalls parts of the
school were later found to have asbestos in it.  She also believes
she may have been exposed to asbestos while helping with her
father's dusty work overalls.

Her dad, Arthur Carter, worked for Elliott Bros Limited at ICI
Billingham between October 1965 and February 1966 and for Steel
and Co Limited from March 1966 to May 1975. Sadly, he died from
lung cancer in 2001.

She said: "I used to do everything I could to help my mum and used
to help wash my dad's boiler suits from work which were always
covered in dust which I now believe may have been asbestos dust.

"The course of my illness has been horrendous. Before, I was such
an active person and enjoyed walking and going to the gym but I'm
now in pain and undergoing chemotherapy.

"It's really hard for my husband, Harry, and I as we have only
been married for five-and-a-half years and I thought we would have
a long future together."

Anyone with information should call Isobel Lovett or Emma Tordoff
at Irwin Mitchell on 0191 279 0104.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards Summary Judgment to Boston Edison
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Rhode Island court has
awarded summary judgment to a premises defendant in an asbestos
case, finding that plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence to
support the causation element of his prima facie case.

In the May 23 opinion, the Rhode Island Superior Court found the
plaintiffs had presented no evidence that the insulation worker
was exposed to asbestos-containing products while working at a
generating station owned by Boston Edison Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses Fibro Claim v. Union Pacific
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court
has dismissed asbestos claims against Union Pacific, agreeing with
the defendant that it did not have a duty to protect a tally man
from asbestos-containing products in the railcars.

In the May 27 order, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana said that the plaintiffs had failed to
present any case law that imposed a legal duty on a railroad
carrier under similar circumstances.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. to Check Fibro in Brake Product Imports
-------------------------------------------------------------
TireBusiness.com reported that the U.S. House of Representatives
voted May 29 to approve an appropriations bill that includes a
provision ordering the Commerce Department to investigate imports
of brake products containing asbestos.

The Commerce, Science, Justice and Related Agencies appropriations
package for fiscal year 2015 passed 321-87, according to the Motor
& Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) which, along with the
Brake Manufacturers Council and the Automotive Aftermarket
Suppliers Association, supported the brake products provision. The
groups called its passage a major victory for their members.

Commerce's International Trade Administration must complete its
investigation and submit its report to Congress within 120 days,
according to the provision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lawyers Accuse Garlock of Coverup
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daneman, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that
the personal injury lawyers repeatedly painted as the villains in
Garlock Sealing Technologies' Chapter 11 bankruptcy are hitting
back, claiming the company is in fact the one withholding
evidence.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants filed
a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court asking Judge George Hodges to
revisit a ruling early this year about Garlock's financial
obligations to people suffering from asbestos-related health
claims. "Garlock has committed a fraud upon the court," the
committee wrote in a memorandum supporting its motion, claiming
that the Palmyra company cherry-picked evidence that it presented
to Hodges -- the same legal chicanery Garlock has accused
attorneys of.

The fight revolves around a ruling by Hodges in January that the
company would likely have to pay no more than $125 million to
settle any current and future mesothelioma claims against it --
mesothelioma being a rare cancer of the lining around the lungs. A
pair of bankruptcy committees of attorneys representing plaintiffs
or future plaintiffs against Garlock had argued for a figure in
excess of $1 billion.

The Wayne County gasket and seal maker has been a defendant in
literally thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits dating back
decades. But when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
June 2010, it cited a recent wave of substantial verdicts against
it in mesothelioma cases.

In his ruling, Hodges -- a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge for the
Western District of North Carolina -- said Garlock had
demonstrated that numerous other manufacturers were almost surely
far more responsible for any mesothelioma cases than would have
come from the relatively small doses of low potency asbestos once
associated with Garlock's seals and gaskets. He also was
particularly condemning of plaintiff legal tactics, writing that
as a number of other large thermal insulation companies went
bankrupt, and attorneys began suing Garlock more, "evidence of
plaintiffs' exposure to other asbestos products often disappeared
(and) certain plaintiffs' law firms used this control over the
evidence to drive up the settlements demanded of Garlock."

However, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants argues in its motion that the math Garlock used to come
up with its $125 million figure was based on just 15 cases out of
thousands the company settled in recent years. "Garlock failed to
produce evidence that would not fit this revisionist account of
its history in the tort system," the committee wrote in its 64-
page memorandum. "The committee has been able to uncover other
instance in which evidence that Garlock was obligated to produce
but withheld contradicts its contention that settlement values
were inflated by suppression of evidence on the part of plaintiffs
in the tort system."

The committee's attempt to revisit the company's liability comes
as Garlock last month filed a 347-page reorganization plan with
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, spelling out how it proposes to set up a
trust fund to handle any current and future asbestos-related
health claims. Hodges' January ruling was the foundation for
Garlock's reorganization plan.

Garlock's legal fight, and the claims of plaintiff's attorneys
hiding evidence that would help Garlock's defense, has spawned a
bill in North Carolina that would require people suing for damages
related to asbestos exposure to disclose all other claims they
have filed or might file. A similar law went into effect earlier
this year in Wisconsin, and in Ohio in 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Senate Panel Changes Product Liability Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a Senate panel has rejected
proposals that would have made it harder for North Carolinians to
sue manufacturers.

Senators voted to remove a provision that would exempt
manufacturers from liability over its products, as long as the
products met all government regulations when they were sold.
They also removed a provision governing lawsuits on asbestos and
silica exposure.

Several people asked the committee to strike down the liability
proposal that, especially as it relates to pharmaceuticals.
Opponents said that it would prohibit consumers from suing a
company if they were harmed by its medical products. They noted
that the Food and Drug Administration does not always effectively
clear products of serious risks before they are used.

The bill is set to move to another Senate committee this week.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Offers Mesothelioma Diagnosis Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Compensation Center is now trying to help
families dealing with a possible mesothelioma diagnosis understand
the vital diagnostic steps that must be taken, if their loved one
is now terminally ill and the individual was known to have a work
history involving major exposure to asbestos. Without a actual
diagnosis of mesothelioma that includes a pathology report,
compensation for this rare form of cancer is all but impossible.

The reason the Compensation Center is so passionate about getting
a confirmed mesothelioma diagnosis is because they believe
hundreds, or perhaps north of a thousand US citizens die each year
from mesothelioma without an actual diagnosis for this rare form
of cancer, which means there will never be compensation for the
victim or their family members. The group feels this is an
incredible injustice to the possible victim and their family. For
more information family members of individuals suspected of having
mesothelioma, but are too weak to have a biopsy, are urged to
contact the Mesothelioma Compensation Center anytime at 866-714-
7466.

The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, "In just the last week
we have had two calls from extremely concerned family members
about what is involved in a mesothelioma diagnosis, because their
terminally ill loved one had long term exposure to asbestos. In
one instance the individual had served in the US Navy as a
machinist during the Vietnam war, and spent the rest of his
working life working for a major truck builder on the assembly
line. In the other instance, the individual had spent 40 years as
a demolition contractor. In both instances we were able to help
the families with customized diagnostic approaches, after checking
with our medical consultants."

"If a doctor mentions mesothelioma could be a possibility for a
loved one, or the family knows a terminally ill individual had
heavy exposure to asbestos at work, family members are urged to
call us at 866-714-6466 so we can tell them everything we know
about mesothelioma diagnostic tests, and how vital it is to
discover mesothelioma before the individual passes away."
http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com

For more information about mesothelioma diagnostic tests please
visit the American Cancer Society's web site called, "How to
diagnose Mesothelioma," which was last updated in December 2013:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/malignantmesothelioma/detailedguide/m
alignant-mesothelioma-diagnosed.

Information About Mesothelioma From The Mesothelioma Compensation
Center For Diagnosed Victims And Their Families:

High risk groups for exposure to asbestos include the US Navy
Veterans, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, manufacturing
workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, or
construction workers. Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred
in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's.

US Navy Veterans account for a significant portion of all
diagnosed victims of mesothelioma each year. According to the US
Centers for Disease Control the average age for a diagnosed victim
of mesothelioma is 72 years old. Each year between 2500, and 3000
US citizens will be diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is
attributable to exposure to asbestos.

According to the CDC the states with the highest incidence of
mesothelioma include Pennsylvania, Maine, New Jersey, West
Virginia, Florida, Wyoming, and Washington. However, based on the
calls the Mesothelioma Compensation Center receives diagnosed
victims could be in any state including California, New York,
Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas,
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon,
Hawaii, or Alaska.

The Mesothelioma Compensation Center says, "If you call us at 866-
714-6466, we will see to it that you have on the spot access to
the nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys, because these
incredibly skilled legal experts consistently get the best
financial compensation results for their clients on a nationwide
basis."

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, please visit the US
Centers For Disease Control's web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Announces Secondary Offering
--------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation announced on June 9, 2014, that the WRG
Asbestos PI Trust has agreed to sell 5,000,000 shares of common
stock, par value $0.10 per share of Sealed Air, in an underwritten
secondary offering on a bought deal basis. Sealed Air will not
sell any shares in the offering and will not receive any proceeds
from the offering. Concurrently with, and conditioned upon the
completion of, this offering, Sealed Air has agreed to purchase
$130 million of Common Stock from the selling stockholder at the
price at which the shares of Common Stock are sold to the
underwriter in the secondary offering.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is serving as the sole
underwriter of the offering.

The shares will be offered pursuant to an effective registration
statement previously filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. A prospectus supplement relating to the offering will
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of
the prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus when
available may be obtained by contacting Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC by mail at Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Attention: Prospectus Department, One Madison Avenue, New York,
New York 10010, by telephone at (800) 221-1037, or by Email at
newyork.prospectus@credit-suisse.com.

This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the
solicitation of an offer to buy any securities nor will there be
any sale of these securities in any state or other jurisdiction in
which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to
registration or qualification under the securities laws of any
such state or other jurisdiction. The offering of these securities
will be made only by means of the prospectus supplement and the
accompanying prospectus.

Business

Sealed Air creates a world that feels, tastes and works better. In
2013, Sealed Air generated revenue of approximately $7.7 billion
by helping our customers achieve their sustainability goals in the
face of today's biggest social and environmental challenges. Our
portfolio of widely recognized brands, including Cryovac(TM)brand
food packaging solutions, Bubble Wrap(TM)brand cushioning and
Diversey(TM)cleaning and hygiene solutions, ensures a safer and
less wasteful food supply chain, protects valuable goods shipped
around the world, and improves health through clean environments.
Sealed Air has approximately 25,000 employees who serve customers
in 175 countries. To learn more, visit www.sealedair.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Mfg. Confirms Chapter 11 Plan
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York on June 23 issued a findings of
fact, conclusions of law and order confirming Metex Mfg.
Corporation's Plan of Reorganization, after determining that the
Plan satisfies the confirmation requirements of the Bankruptcy
Code.

According to Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg
News, the overwhelming majority of asbestos-related personal
injury claimants -- the only class entitled to vote -- cast
ballots in favor of the new plan, dealing with asbestos claims
arising after the first bankruptcy.  The initial distribution on
asbestos-related personal injury claims will be 18 percent, Mr.
Rochelle said.

In relation to the confirmation of the Plan, Judge Morris also
approved settlements between Metex and several insurance
companies, including Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, f/k/a
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company; Home Insurance Company;
Liberty Mutual; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company; Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company; National Fire Insurance Company of
Hartford; American Home Assurance Company, Granite State Insurance
Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
PA; Century Indemnity Company; and Allianz Global Risk US
Insurance Company.  Mr. Rochelle said the insurance companies'
contributions of $182.1 million to $189.8 million will help
finance the distributions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Given More Room to Counter Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, reported that the Supreme Court gave companies more
leeway to fend off securities-fraud lawsuits before trial, but it
declined to overrule legal precedent that has undergirded investor
class actions for more than two decades.

The decision, which came in long-running litigation involving
Halliburton Co.'s asbestos liabilities, is a middle-of-the road
outcome in a case that could have reset the board to better favor
corporate defendants facing class-action lawsuits brought by
investors. As a result of Monday's ruling, companies can present
evidence at an early stage in litigation to try to demonstrate
that misleading public statements didn't affect stock prices. The
ruling means Halliburton will have an opportunity to present such
evidence in a further effort to get the case thrown out in the
lower courts.

"The court today took a small first step in a long journey toward
reducing the costs of securities class actions for investors,"
Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
Institute for Legal Reform, said.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court,
disappointed business interests by embracing the fundamental
principle of a 1988 decision laying out what plaintiffs must
allege to proceed in an investor class action. That precedent "is
indispensable to institutional investors and their ability to
recover some portion of their beneficiaries' losses resulting from
securities fraud," the Council of Institutional Investors, a group
representing pension and employee-benefit funds, endowments and
foundations, said.

The landmark case of Basic Inc. v. Levinson -- decided five months
after Black Monday, the 1987 stock-market crash -- found it
unrealistic to require investors to prove they had relied on any
specific misleading statement by a company before getting a class
action into court. Instead, investors could rely on the integrity
of share prices, which efficient markets were presumed to set in
light of company statements.

That legal doctrine, known as "fraud on the market," provided a
basis for investors to pool their claims into one large class-
action lawsuit, creating a legal dynamic that corporations have
been battling for decades. Critics say the Basic ruling is faulty,
in part because some investors buy or sell on the speculation the
market has mispriced a particular security.

"Halliburton has not identified the kind of fundamental shift in
economic theory that could justify overruling a precedent," Chief
Justice Roberts wrote, rejecting that argument.

He added that corporate defendants are entitled to rebut the
presumption investors relied on company statements before a
plaintiff class action is certified by a trial court -- a step
companies say puts pressure on them to settle even questionable
claims rather than risk a jury verdict. The court was unanimous on
that point. But three justices -- Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia
and Samuel Alito -- said they would have overruled the Basic
decision.

The ruling in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund addressed a
decade-old lawsuit where plaintiffs allege the company misled the
public about its asbestos liabilities, revenue on construction
contracts and the benefits of its 1998 merger with Dresser
Industries.

Both the plaintiffs and Halliburton said they were pleased with
the outcome, but Halliburton declined further comment. "Defendants
have always been permitted to try to prove the absence of price
impact, and permitting them to do so at the class-certification
stage will not significantly limit securities lawsuits," said
David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, representing plaintiffs
in the case.

Separately, the court gave a broad reading to a federal bank-fraud
law, ruling it can be used to prosecute a scam artist who used
altered checks to deceive cashiers at Target Corp. stores.

With the aid of his girlfriend, Kevin Loughlin posed as a Mormon
missionary to approach Salt Lake City households, where he rifled
through mailboxes to steal checks, court documents said. He forged
or altered the checks, used them to buy merchandise and then would
return purchases for a cash refund.

Federal prosecutors charged Mr. Loughlin with obtaining property
from a bank "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises." The case involved six checks,
totaling about $1,200, and he was sentenced to three years in
prison. The Supreme Court ruled squarely for prosecutors. "After
all, a merchant accepts a check only to pass it along to a bank
for payment; and upon receipt from the merchant, that check
triggers disbursement of bank funds just as if presented by the
fraudster himself," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's
unanimous decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Has 700 Cases Pending as of March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation has 700 active asbestos-related
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.

As of March 31, 2014, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
700 active cases involving approximately 3,350 plaintiffs. Many of
these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from fifty to
more than one hundred). About 2,560, or approximately 76 percent,
of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions
which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based
upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the
actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against
U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs. During the three months ended March 31, 2014, U. S.
Steel paid approximately $1 million in settlements. These
settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 45
claims. New case filings in the first three months of 2014 added
approximately 75 claims. At December 31, 2013, U. S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 720 active cases involving
approximately 3,320 plaintiffs. During 2013, U. S. Steel paid
approximately $11 million in settlements. These settlements and
other dispositions resolved approximately 250 claims. New case
filings in the year ended December 31, 2013 added approximately
240 claims. Most claims filed in 2014 and 2013 involved individual
or small groups of claimants as many jurisdictions no longer
permit the filing of mass complaints.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3)
claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws by
employees of former operations of U. S. Steel. In general, the
only insurance available to U. S. Steel with respect to asbestos
claims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-million
dollar retentions. To date, U. S. Steel has received minimal
payments under these policies relating to asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
235 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases where the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U. S. Steel or our products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs
have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure
to asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related
to U. S. Steel or our products or premises.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U. S. Steel's financial position. U. S. Steel does
not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect to
such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against U. S.
Steel allege so-called "premises" liability-based alleged exposure
on U. S. Steel's current or former premises. These claims are made
by an indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers,
railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees,
government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers.
In most cases the claimant also was exposed to asbestos in non-U.
S. Steel settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S.
Steel and non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant; and
the strength or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steel
exposure and any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity
of the injury claimed.

The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, management believes that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on U. S.
Steel's financial condition, although the resolution of such
matters could significantly impact results of operations for a
particular quarter. Among the factors considered in reaching this
conclusion are: (1) it has been many years since U. S. Steel
employed maritime workers or manufactured or sold asbestos
containing products; (2) most asbestos containing material was
removed or remediated at U. S. Steel facilities many years ago;
and (3) U. S. Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements and
dismissals.

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) is an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with production
ope. S. Steel is also engaged in other business activities
consisting primarily of transportation services (railroad and
barge operations) and real estate operations. rations in North
America and Europe. The Company operates in three segments: Flat-
rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) and
Tubular Products (Tubular). U. S. Steel owns, develops and manages
various real estate assets, which include approximately 200,000
acres of surface rights primarily in Alabama, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. In addition, U. S. Steel
participates in joint ventures that are developing real estate
projects in Alabama, Maryland and Illinois. U. S. Steel also owns
approximately 4,000 acres of land in Ontario, Canada.


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

Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging
bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust.
From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. OI Inc. exited the pipe and block
insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos personal
injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks
compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

As of March 31, 2014, O-I Inc. has determined that it is a named
defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately
2,500 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the
lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2013, approximately 80% of
plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or
in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke
the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 16%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above the jurisdictional
minimum up to, and including, $15 million or less, and 3% of
plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but
less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically
plead damages equal to or greater than $100 million.

As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice
permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary
damages. OI Inc.'s experience resolving hundreds of thousands of
asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates
that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a complaint bears
little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value. Rather,
the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors
as the severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the product
identification evidence against OI Inc. and other defendants, the
defenses available to OI Inc. and other defendants, the specific
jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff's
medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, OI Inc. has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by OI Inc.'s
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

OI Inc. has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, the OI Inc. believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the description of pending matters or in
the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, OI Inc. as of March 31,
2014, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 393,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim
of approximately $8,700. Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred
amounts payable totaled approximately $24 million at March 31,
2014 ($12 million at December 31, 2013) and are included in the
foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. OI Inc.'s asbestos
indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are
expected to continue to vary considerably over time. A part of OI
Inc.'s objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of
asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of
claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in
OI Inc.'s administrative claims handling agreements has generally
reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would
otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts and
legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or
suspect claims that OI Inc. otherwise would have received. These
developments generally have had the effect of increasing OI Inc.'s
per-claim average indemnity payment over time.

OI Inc. believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, OI
Inc. has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion through
2013, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related
liability. OI Inc.'s ability to reasonably estimate its liability
has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the
volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States,
the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for
bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy
trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease
incidence and claiming patterns against OI Inc., and the success
of efforts by co-defendants to restrict or eliminate their
liability in the litigation.

OI Inc. has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against OI Inc. The material
components of OI Inc.'s accrued liability are based on amounts
determined by OI Inc. in connection with its annual comprehensive
review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is
probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be
reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against OI Inc.; (ii) the liability for asbestos
claims not yet asserted against OI Inc., but which OI Inc.
believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iii) the
legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the
foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
OI Inc.'s accrual are:

(a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who
were exposed to OI Inc.'s asbestos-containing insulation prior to
its exit from that business in 1958;

(b) the extent to which claims are resolved under OI Inc.'s
administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those
set forth in those agreements;

(c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious
disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;

(d) the extent to which OI Inc. is able to defend itself
successfully at trial or on appeal;

(e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies;
and

(f) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources
and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution
of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

OI Inc. conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-related
liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and
reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant
changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review.
If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the
existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover
its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then OI Inc. will
record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability. OI
Inc. believes that a reasonable estimation of the probable amount
of the liability for claims not yet asserted against OI Inc. is
not possible beyond a period of several years. Therefore, while
the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be
determined, OI Inc. expects the addition of one year to the
estimation period will result in an annual charge.

OI Inc.'s reported results of operations for 2013 were materially
affected by the $145 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-
related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be
substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect OI Inc.'s results of operations for the period
in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant
amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and may
continue to affect the Company's and OI Inc.'s cost of borrowing
and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions.
However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and
other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to fund OI Inc.'s
asbestos-related costs and to fund the Company's working capital
and capital expenditure requirements on a short-term and long-term
basis.

Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., is a 100%-owned subsidiary of Owens-
Illinois, Inc. ("OI Inc."). Although OI Inc. does not conduct any
operations, it has substantial obligations related to outstanding
indebtedness and asbestos-related payments. OI Inc. relies
primarily on distributions from its direct and indirect
subsidiaries to meet these obligations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 392 Fibro Cases at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 392 pending asbestos-related claims against Rogers
Corporation, 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 in asbestos litigation
primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of March
31, 2014, there were 392 pending claims compared to 362 pending
claims at December 31, 2013. The number of pending claims at a
particular time can fluctuate significantly from period to period
depending on how successful we have been in getting these cases
dismissed or settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying
alleged damages in personal injury tort cases such as these, other
than a minimum jurisdictional amount which may be required for
such reasons as allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial
(which the plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than
if heard only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated
in federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions
in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged
damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In
those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's
litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims
against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 392 claims
pending as of  March 31, 2014,  72 claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought,  318 claims cite jurisdictional amounts,
and only 2 claims (less than 1.0% of the total pending claims)
specifies the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional
requirements. Of these 2 claims, 1 claim alleges compensatory and
punitive damages of $20 million each and 1 claim alleges punitive
damages of $20 million. These 2 claims name between 21 and 29
defendants. However, we do not believe that this data allows for
an accurate assessment of the relation that the amount of alleged
damages claimed might bear to the ultimate disposition of these
cases.

We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase
in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in
Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a
higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by
plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the
law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of
asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005
and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and
increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed
against us in 2011, 2012, 2013 and the first quarter of 2014
(annualized) was significantly higher than in 2010. These new
lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research
Associates, Inc. ("NERA") and Marsh USA, Inc. ("Marsh") reports.

Defenses

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that the
trend will continue and that a majority of the claimants in
pending cases will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss.
This belief is based in large part on the limited number of
asbestos-related products manufactured and sold by us and the fact
that the asbestos was encapsulated in such products. In addition,
even at sites where the presence of an alleged injured party can
be verified during the same period those products were used, our
liability cannot be presumed because even if an individual
contracted an asbestos-related disease, not everyone who was
employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos containing products
that we manufactured. Based on these and other factors, we have
and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-
related matters.

Dismissals and Settlements

Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although some
cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833 defendants. We
have obtained the dismissal of many of these claims. For the three
months ended March 31, 2014, 27 claims were dismissed and no (0)
claims were settled. For the year ended December 31, 2013, 115
claims were dismissed and 23 were settled. The majority of costs
have been paid by our insurance carriers, including the costs
associated with the small number of cases that have been settled.
Nothing was paid on settlements for the three months ended March
31, 2014, compared to $4.8 million for the year ended 2013.
Although these figures provide some insight into our experience
with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the
dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience in the
future.

Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number. The majority of settled claims were settled for
nominal amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid by
our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

Rogers Corporation (Rogers) is the supplier of a range of
specialty materials and components for the portable
communications, communications infrastructure, consumer
electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean
technology. The Company operates in two business segments: Core
Strategic and Other. Core Strategic segment includes High
Performance Foams, Printed Circuit Materials, Power Electronics
Solutions, Curamik Electronics Solutions and Power Distribution
Systems. Its other segment consists of elastomer rollers, floats
and non-woven composite materials products, as well as its
inverter distribution activities. On January 4, 2011, the Company
acquired Curamik Electronics GmbH (Curamik), a manufacturer of
power electronic substrate products. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, the Company discontinued its Thermal Management
Solutions operating segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $447-Mil. Reserves for Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., had $447 million total reserves for asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2013 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be
decreased by $28 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were
$447 million at March 31, 2014 compared to $463 million at
September 30, 2013.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Approximately 65% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of March 31, 2014. The
remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance
companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and
from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations
have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashland
discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projected
timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely
settlement amounts can be determined.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against
Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain London companies and Chartis (AIG
member) companies seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual
obligations to provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and
defense costs under existing coverage-in-place agreements. In
addition, Ashland has initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court
against certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity
Company and Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these
Berkshire entities have wrongfully interfered with these insurers'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position
will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of
these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of
loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance
receivables from these insurers.

At March 31, 2014, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $403 million, of which $98 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $408
million at September 30, 2013. During the June 2013 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers, was completed. This model update resulted in a $3
million decrease in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Unit Had $331MM Reserves for Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., disclosed that total reserves for Hercules asbestos-
related claims was $331 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.

Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that
was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with
insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The
estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of
the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit
rating of B+ or higher as of March 31, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the receivables from
insurers amounted to $74 million and $75 million, respectively. As
previously mentioned, during the June 2013 quarter, the annual
update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos
reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from
insurers was completed. This model update caused a $19 million
increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 51,000 Fibro Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation had 51,000 pending active 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 states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by us or our former subsidiaries prior to 1985
contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket)
which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts
may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or
other) material and was non-friable.

As of March 31, 2014, there were approximately 51 thousand pending
active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to
date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large
majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In
addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups,
the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits
will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively
defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek
to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate the
maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated
to be filed over the next 10 years.

Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any
predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate
of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light
of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is
probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos
claims filed beyond the next 10 years which could be material to
the financial statements, we do not believe there is a reasonable
basis for estimating those costs at this time.

The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events. However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not
possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and
unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future
events affecting the key factors and other variables within the
next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond
the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements.

In the third quarter of each year, we conduct our annual asbestos
measurement with the assistance of outside consultants to review
and update the underlying assumptions used in our asbestos
liability and related asset estimates. In each remeasurement, the
underlying assumptions are updated based on our actual experience
since our previous annual remeasurement and we reassess the
appropriate reference period used in determining each assumption
and our expectations regarding future conditions, including
inflation. As part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos
exposure, each quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and
quantitative data available for the key inputs and assumptions,
comparing the data to the expectations on which the most recent
annual liability and asset estimates were based. Based on this
evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate
was warranted for the period ended March 31, 2014, other than the
incremental accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period.
The net asbestos charge for the three months ended March 31, 2014
and 2013 was $15.8 and $16.0, respectively.

The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $760.2 and $746.9
as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Suit Against Travelers Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's putative class action lawsuit against Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On February 13, 2003, we commenced an action,
Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los
Angeles County, seeking recovery of costs related to asbestos
product liability losses. During this coverage litigation, we
entered into coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE,
Wausau and Utica Mutual dated April 2004, September 2004, and
February 2007, respectively. These agreements provide specific
coverage for the Company's legacy asbestos liabilities. In the
first quarter of 2012, Goulds Pumps resolved its claims against
Fireman's Fund and Continental Casualty. In January 2012, ITT and
Goulds Pumps filed a putative class action suit in federal court
in Connecticut against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (ITT
Corporation and Goulds Pumps Inc., v. Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and Surety Company), (Fed
Dist Ct, D. Conn., CA NO.3:12-cv-00038-RN)), alleging that
Travelers is unilaterally reinterpreting language contained in
older Aetna policies so as to avoid paying on asbestos claims.
This action was stayed pending a decision by the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County in the Cannon action on interpretation of
policy language. On January 29, 2014, the Superior Court issued
its opinion upholding the Goulds Pumps' claims that it is entitled
to receive reimbursement from Traveler's for asbestos claims. The
Connecticut Court has now lifted the Stay and allowed the case to
proceed. In 2013, the Company finalized a settlement with its
insurer PEIC that resolves all outstanding issues between the
Company and PEIC related to the primary policies issued by PEIC
during the period from 1977 to 1985. PEIC has agreed to make
structured payments overtime to a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF)
to be used for asbestos related costs. The Company continues to
engage other defendants in settlement negotiations as
appropriate."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,270 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,200 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2013.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience over a decade
ago. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial,
including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court
at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal
finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company
and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in
the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its
complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's
compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with
occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages.
While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007,
the court held a case management conference in March 2011. In
November 2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit
into separate liability and damages proceedings. A hearing on that
motion has not yet been scheduled. No liability has been recorded
for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not
probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is
not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the
lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West
Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact
that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers
where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of
joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a
jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately
tried.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues $124-Mil. For Fibro Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company accrued $124 million for respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities, according to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's on-going review of its accruals and
the greater cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
the Company increased its accruals in the first quarter of 2014
for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $7 million. In the
first quarter of 2014, the Company made payments for fees and
settlements of $10 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos
litigation. As of March 31, 2014, the Company had accruals for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $124 million (excluding
Aearo accruals). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range
of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the
Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted,
(ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple
defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed
to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability
may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary
by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$53 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions,
pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its
experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of
each claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has
concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect
the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including
(i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent
to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii)
the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings
with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance
coverage.

As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served
with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its
insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. --
both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage
for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District
Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment
regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.
The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and
Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint were dismissed
because of settlements they had reached with the Company regarding
the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the Company
reached agreements in principle with the remaining insurers in the
lawsuit. The Company and those insurers have been in the process
of preparing formal settlement agreements. After all of the
settlement agreements have been executed, the Court will issue
dismissal orders at which time this matter will be concluded.
During the first quarter of 2014, the Company received payments of
$5 million from settlements with insurers.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. Once the claims-made insurance coverage is
resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its
remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask claims.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Unit Estimates $24-Mil. Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $24 million
as the best estimate of the probable Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-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.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of March 31, 2014, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
has recorded $24 million as the best estimate of the probable
liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements
and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement
among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary
of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group").
Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety"
brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical
Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual
plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further
limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on
July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays
to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or  silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. As of March 31, 2014, Aearo has elected to
pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to
additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period
covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue
its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer
able to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities
for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than
the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Seek Review of "Paulus" Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says it will seek review of certain aspects of a verdict
in William Paulus' asbestos claim before the California Supreme
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 August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company.
The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by
order dated February 21, 2014. The Company will seek review of
certain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court.

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. Seeks Reargument of "Suttner" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is seeking reargument of an adverse decision in Gerald
Suttner's asbestos claim, 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 October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million.  The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied.  The court entered a judgment
of $0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
is seeking reargument of this decision.

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 "Hellam" Ruling is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from an adverse ruling in James Hellam'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 November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million.  Based on California court rules
regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the
Company in the amount of $1.282 million.  The Company filed post-
trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict and also requesting that
settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance
with California law.  On January 31, 2013, the court entered an
order disposing partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the
Company filed an appeal regarding the portions of the motion that
were denied. The court entered judgment against the Company in the
amount of $1.1 million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated
April 16, 2014, the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of
liability against the Company, but reserved the arguments relating
to recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains
pending.

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 Appeals "Vinciquerra" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has appealed an adverse verdict in Frank Vinciguerra's
asbestos claim, 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 February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial.   The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law.  These motions were denied.  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: Crane Co. Appeals in "Peraica" Suit Are Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeals from rulings in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica remain 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 March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica 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
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets.  After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The
Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of
its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the
appeals, which are scheduled to be heard in third quarter of 2014.

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: BorgWarner Had 17,500 Fibro Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., had 17,500 pending asbestos-related product
liability 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 states: "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of March 31, 2014
and December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately 17,500 and
17,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
respectively. Of the approximately 17,500 outstanding claims at
March 31, 2014, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions
that have undergone significant tort and judicial reform
activities subsequent to the filing of these claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2014, of the approximately 600 claims
resolved, 105 (18%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant
by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2013, of the
approximately 1,500 claims resolved, 297 (20%) resulted in any
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed the verdict. The
Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the
appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending
litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
possible loss, if any, that could result from this action.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company has paid and accrued $294.1
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received $124.8 million in cash and notes
from insurers. The net balance of $169.3 million, is expected to
be fully recovered, of which approximately $20.0 million is
expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of recovery is
dependent on final resolution of the declaratory judgment action
or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2013,
insurers owed $153.6 million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $169.3 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $107.1 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at March 31, 2014. The
Company also has a related asset of $107.1 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which, more-
likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to March 31, 2015. At
December 31, 2013, the comparable value of the accrued liability
and associated insurance asset was $96.7 million.

The 2014 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in
excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the state or federal levels."

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Has 5,700 Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont subsidiary had 5,700 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,700 and
5,400 pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2014 and
September 30, 2013, respectively. Although Maremont has been named
in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged,
very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused
their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even
hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of
hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining its asbestos-related liability.

As of March 31, 2014, Maremont's asbestos-related liabilities were
$74 million and corresponding asbestos-related recoveries were $58
million.

Pending and Future Claims: Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates
White), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating
costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with
determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be
expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White prepares these
cost estimates annually in September. Although it is not possible
to estimate the full range of costs because of various
uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be
possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the
cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving
pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical
data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur
in the future.

Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range
of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next ten years of $73 million to $80 million. Management
recognized a liability of $73 million as of March 31, 2014 and
September 30, 2013, as the most likely and probable liability for
pending and future claims over the next ten years. The ultimate
cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on
the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by
law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with
Maremont. Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental
insurance receivables associated with recoveries expected for
asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related
liabilities for pending and future claim changes. Maremont
currently expects to exhaust the limits of its settled insurance
coverage prior to the end of the ten-year forecasted liability
period. Maremont believes it has additional insurance coverage;
however, certain carriers have disputed coverage under policies
they issued (see "Recoveries" below). Because no insurance
receivable is currently recognized for these policies in dispute,
Maremont recognized a $9 million charge in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2013 associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-
related liabilities. If Maremont is unable to recognize recoveries
from disputed policies, it is reasonably possible that the annual
valuation could result in a charge to be recognized in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2014.

The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation
with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2023. The ten-year assumption is considered
appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements
with key plaintiff law firms, and filings of mesothelioma claims
have been relatively stable over the last few years;

* Maremont believes that the litigation environment may change
significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will likely decline for
each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a
probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will
be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The
insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is
$58 million as of March 31, 2014 and September 30, 2013. The
receivable at March 31, 2014 is for coverage provided by two
insurance carriers based on coverage in place agreements. Maremont
currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this
coverage sometime in the next ten years. Maremont maintained
insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management
believes covers indemnity and defense costs. Maremont has incurred
liabilities allocable to these policies but has not yet billed
these insurance carriers, and no receivable has been recorded for
disputed policies. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a
lawsuit against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its
rights to insurance for asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. The
difference between the estimated liability and insurance
receivable is primarily related to proceeds received from settled
insurance policies and claims for which coverage under Maremont's
insurance policies is in dispute with the insurer. Certain
insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate
settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received
from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance
receivables.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the
company's financial condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Has 2,800 Pending Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., had 2,800 pending
active asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other
companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability
for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of
the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At March 31, 2014
and September 30, 2013, there were approximately 2,800 and 2,600,
respectively, pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name
AM, together with many other companies, as defendants. A
significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and
past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For
those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. For these reasons, the company does not
consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a
meaningful factor in determining asbestos-related liabilities.

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As
of September 30, 2013, Bates White provided an estimate that
consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years of $40 million to $45 million. Management recognized a
liability of $40 million as of March 31, 2014 and September 30,
2013, as the most likely and probable liability for pending and
future claims over the next ten years. The company is experiencing
higher-than-expected defense costs in the first six months of
fiscal year 2014. Therefore, the next annual valuation at
September 30, 2014, may result in an increased obligation
estimate. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims
is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for
plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Rockwell.

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As
of September 30, 2013, Bates White provided an estimate that
consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years of $40 million to $45 million. Management recognized a
liability of $40 million as of March 31, 2014 and September 30,
2013, as the most likely and probable liability for pending and
future claims over the next ten years. The company is experiencing
higher-than-expected defense costs in the first six months of
fiscal year 2014. Therefore, the next annual valuation at
September 30, 2014, may result in an increased obligation
estimate. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims
is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for
plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Rockwell.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 312 Pending Fibro-related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., was named a defendant in approximately 312
lawsuits involving approximately 958 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 states: "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our McJunkin Red Man corporation
subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2014, we are
named a defendant in approximately 312 lawsuits involving
approximately 958 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

MRC Global Inc., formerly known as McJunkin Red Man Holding
Corporation is a holding company. The Company is the distributor
of pipe, valves and fittings (PVF) and related products and
services to the energy industry. The Company operates in two
segments: North American segment and International segment. Its
North American segment includes over 180 branch locations, six
distribution centers in the United States, one distribution center
in Canada, 11 valve automation service centers and over 170 pipe
yards located in the oil and natural gas regions in North America.
Its International segment includes over 40 branch locations
throughout Europe, Asia and Australasia with distribution centers
in each of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia and 10
automation service centers in Europe and Asia. Effective January
6, 2014, MRC Global Inc a unit of GS Capital Partners LP
subsidiary of Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Goldman Sachs & Co unit,
acquired Stream AS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 435 Pending Fibro Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 435 pending asbestos cases at
March 31, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have
been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current
or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases
pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific
dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific
dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a
monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary
claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not
attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various
defendants.

At March 31, 2014, the Company had 435 total pending asbestos
cases.

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of
the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at
the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a
claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible
at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be
determined through written interrogatories or other discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only
accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel
has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff
will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment
to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK
Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of
asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target
defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these
claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small
fraction of the damages initially claimed. The approximate net
amount paid on behalf of AK Steel in settlement of asbestos-
related claims was $0.3 million in the three months ended March
31, 2014.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the
asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present
knowledge, and certain factors, the Company believes it is
unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos
claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial condition. However, predictions as to the outcome of
pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos
exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These
uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which
new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other
companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3)
the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type
and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each
claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation
affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company).
The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking and
finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operations
produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated,
cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialty
stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip
form, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished into
welded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations include
European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel
products and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc.


                             *********

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  * * *