CAR_Public/140725.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 147

                             Headlines


2942 N. LINCOLN: Does Not Pay OT Pursuant to FLSA, Suit Claims
4595 FOOD MARKET: Faces "Delgado" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
APPLEBEE'S: Faces Suit Over E.coli-Tainted Oriental Chicken Salad
AR RESOURCES: Faces "Sami" Suit in Middle District of Florida
B. ROBERTS: Recalls 202 Pounds of Chicken Products

BENITO DIAZ: Faces "Leon" Suit in D.N.J. Over Violation of FLSA
BP PLC: Judge Orders Casey Thonn to Return Settlement Payments
CATERPILLAR INC: "White" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL
CHICHESTER SCHOOL: Accused of Illegal Transfer of Students
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls About 895,000 SUVs Over Wiring Problem
CIRCLE K: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act in Fla., Class Claims
CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
COCA-COLA CO: "Phelps" Suit Consolidated in Orange Juice MDL
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Florida

COVISINT CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Illegal Manipulation of Generic Opana ER
FINLEY CATERING: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
FIRST SERVICE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages

FRESH SPROUT: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to E. Coli
GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Bikano Navratan Due to Undeclared Gluten
GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Disclose Defects, "Turpyn" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: "DePalma" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Holliday" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over False Safety Ratings on Cadillacs
GENERAL MOTORS: Millikin "Deeply Sorry" for Switch Defect Handling
GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Pilichowsky" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
GIANT EAGLE: "Gabriel" Suit Removed to Western District of Penn.

GREEN WORLD: Recalls Abido Crispy Cover Fish Mixed Cover Mix
HAIN CELESTIAL: Judge Dismisses "Raw" Juice Class Action
HARRIS VENTURES: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Former Autonomy CEO Challenges Settlement
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Fifth Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal

IMPERIAL, CA: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
IOWA: State Supreme Court Set to Rule on Hiring Bias Class Action
KING'S VEGETARIAN: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Wheat
KING'S VEGETARIAN: Recalls Vegetarian Food Brand Dim Sum Products
LES PRODUITS: Recalls McLean Syrup Due to Swollen Packages

LOS MUCHACHOS: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MERITAS HEALTH: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Outdoor Patio Set Chairs
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seven Retired Players Appeal Concussion Accord
NIPPON YUSEN: Sued Over Manipulation of Carrier Service Price

OSMOSE INC: Falsely Marketed Preservation Products, Suit Says
OXOID LIMITED: Recalls Oxoid Legionella Pneumophila 2-14 Reagent
PANASONIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
PEACHTREE LIGHTING: ETLus Certified Compact Fluorescent Luminaries
PETROLOGISTICS LP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas

PL PHASE ONE: Does Not Pay Tipped Employees Properly, Suit Claims
PODRAVKA: Recalls Luncheon Meat Due to Undeclared Milk
POPKILLER: Recalls USB Chargers, Adapters and Cables
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Camera Program
REGIS CORP: Removed "Rodriguez" Suit to Central District of Cal.

RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SANJAY'S FOODS: Recalls Beef Jamaican Patty Hot
SATINSKY: South Africa Court to Hear R699 Car Scam Class Action
SEARS HOMETOWN: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & PMWA
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

SOUTH BEACH: Removed "Lucero" Suit to S.D. Fla.
SOUTHEAST LINEN: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Action Claims
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
STEPHANIA'S PIEROGIES: Recalls Pork Meat Due to Undeclared Milk
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sued Over Concealment of Vehicle Defects

SUTTER MEDICAL: Did Not Violate Confidentiality Act, Court Rules
TRIDENT ULTRAVIOLET: Recalls Pool UV Sanitization Devices
TSE GROUP: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in N.Y.
UNICER FOODS: Recalls Extra Brand "Queijo De Mistura" Cheese
UNITED STATES: EEOC Affirms 2010 Class Certification Ruling

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Nurses File Overtime Class Action
V THEATER: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
VIETNAMESE AMERICAN: Shrimpers Sue Over Unreleased Subsidy Money
WALNUT CAPITAL: Sued in W.D. Pa. Over Breach of Disabilities Act
WAWONA PACKING: Recalls Sweet 2 Eat Fresh Fruits


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Makes Fibro-Dust Claim Against Norton Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Affirms $12M Jury Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $16.9MM Vermiculite Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cons Edison Has $8MM Accrued Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Has 1,366 New Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Units' Ch. 11 Cases Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Unit Awaits Ruling in Ch. 11 Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $121.1MM Insurance Coverage for Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Accrued $466.8-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HWC Continues to Defend Fibro Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,750 Pending PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 50,899 Fibro Claims as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $680MM Fibro Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $166-Mil. Fibro Insurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Has 180 Pending Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remove Monticello Mayor Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Morvant" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Won't Issue Advisory Opinion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM's Request for Writ of Mandamus Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRC's Bid to Force NICO to Arbitrate Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Barabin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Grants Rehearing in 2 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Awarded Summary Judgment in "Barnes" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Inmate Directed to Amend Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Reverses Ruling in "Folta" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sherwin-Williams, AutoZone Dropped as Defendants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HLC Fails in Insurance Suit Against Continental
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Applications OK'd in Garlock Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RT Vanderbilt & Art Clay Win Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Proctor" Suit Allowed to Continue Against Andal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H&V Dropped as Defendant in "Ricks" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERCLA Suit v. ARG Corp. to Proceed to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9/11 Cleanup Worker's PI Claims Tossed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Partially Wins in Ex-Workers' Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Murray" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Industries' Bid to Junk PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas High Court Uphelds Ruling in "Bostic" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 48 Defendants Dropped in "Denton" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment for Rockwell & Lennox Upheld

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Court Reverses Ruling in "Ganoe" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cos. Granted Summary Judgment in "Harris" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objections to Ch. 11 Trustees' Report Overruled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Flips Ruling in Suit v. Bankrupt Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Court Refuses to Approve CP Hall Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Ct. Refuses to Junk Suits in CP Hall Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Ordered to $500MM to Fibro Creditors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damage Claims in 27 PI Suits Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Reargument Bid in "Lang" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Appeal in "Kestenbaum" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Bid to Appeal in "Germain" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Awards Against Tishman, Crane Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Quash Subpoena in "Carmody" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Adjoin Trial in Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 13 Cos. Given Summary Judgment in "Miller" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Dismissing "Watson" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Screening for Irish Seamen Conducted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro Not Removed for Months
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Members of Claims Group Can Sue Member
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Hopes to End Fibro Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chepstow Woman Died Due to Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Says Suit v. Ferro Not Barred by WCA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra MP Asks to Meet PM on Mr. Fluffy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Remands Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumping Poses Problem in Lake Macquarie

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $90.5MM Awarded to Manville Victims' Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Highlights Improved Fibro Management
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Violations in Netherlands Doubled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Stevenston Victim to Receive Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Gov't to Provide Assistance to Homeowners

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver's Bid for Judgment Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Taken to Hospital Following Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councilman Denies Knowledge of Fibro Presence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Feared as Demolition Grinds to a Halt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Sue THAN Fibro Trust for Records

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Sentenced for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lanarkshire Residents Moved Over Fibro Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules for BNSF Railway in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Springfield Diocese Plans Fibro Clean-up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unions Call for Bridges to Ban Fibro Importation


                            *********


2942 N. LINCOLN: Does Not Pay OT Pursuant to FLSA, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Mendoza, on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons
v. 2942 N. Lincoln Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Las Tablas Colombian
Steak House, and Soraya Suarez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05436 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2014), is brought for failure to pay
overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

2942 N. Lincoln Restaurant, LLC is a restaurant, located at 2942
N. Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com
              jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
              cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com


4595 FOOD MARKET: Faces "Delgado" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Delgado v. 4595 Food Market Corp., d/b/a Joseph's Classic
Market, and Joseph Castellana, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-
80943 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Food Market Corp. owns Joseph's Classic Market located in West
Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (305) 726-0060
      Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
      E-mail: Jaffe.glenn@me.com
              aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


APPLEBEE'S: Faces Suit Over E.coli-Tainted Oriental Chicken Salad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Brickley, writing for NNCNOW.com, reports that a Twin
Cities law firm filed a lawsuit on July 15 against the Applebee's
restaurant chain for allegedly selling a product tainted with
E.coli.

According to the Minnesota Department of Health, seven people
reported eating at five Applebee's locations in Minnesota between
June 24th and June 27th.  One of those victims ate at the Duluth
Applebee's.

The product being blamed for the E.coli outbreak is the Oriental
Chicken Salad.

Applebee's has voluntarily removed this item from its menu.
Applebee's publicly admitted that the outbreak was a result of a
"vendor produce issue."

Minneapolis attorney, Ryan Osterholm, says the lawsuit is based on
a defective product that caused life-threatening illness.

The plaintiff is seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

Health officials say symptoms of E-Coli poisoning include stomach
cramps and diarrhea.

If you have eaten at an Applebee's since June 20th and have
symptoms, you're asked to contact your healthcare provider.


AR RESOURCES: Faces "Sami" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sami, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
AR Resources, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-01173-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla.,
July 21, 2014) is brought relating to restrictions on use of
telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com
                  jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com
                  mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com


B. ROBERTS: Recalls 202 Pounds of Chicken Products
--------------------------------------------------
Wfmynews2.com reports that B. Roberts Foods is recalling 202
pounds of chicken products sold at Harris Teeter stores, the
Charlotte-based distributor announced.

The product in question is the 10-oz. refrigerated packages of
"Harris Teeter, Fresh Foods Market, Deli-Bakery, All Natural
Grilled Chicken Strips."

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service says the problem is
with the product's labeling. Both the top and bottom labels should
read "Grilled Chicken Breast with Sundried Tomato Pasta."

The chicken strips contain milk, a known allergen.  However, the
packaging does not disclose that information, as required by the
USDA.

The product was sent to Harris Teeter stores in North Carolina,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and Washington, DC. Harris Teeter reached out to B.
Roberts Foods after an employee found the mislabeled chicken
strips.  B. Roberts confirmed the misstep and issued the recall.

The product was produced on July 10, 2014.  The establishment
number is 19198, the packaging code is 50223, and the "Sell By"
date is 07/27/14.

Harris Teeter is working with B. Roberts Foods to fix the problem.

There have been no reports of allergic reactions to the chicken
strips, but the USDA recommends calling your doctor if you have
any issues.

For more information about the recall, head to the FSIS Recall
website.  And, the FSIS has a 24-hour virtual representative on
hand to answer your recall questions.  Just "Ask Karen."


BENITO DIAZ: Faces "Leon" Suit in D.N.J. Over Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Leon v. John Doe Corporation and Benito Diaz, individually,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04505 (D.N.J., July 16, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

John Doe Corporation owns, maintains and leases residential
apartment buildings throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Jaffe Glenn Law Group PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


BP PLC: Judge Orders Casey Thonn to Return Settlement Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a New Orleans law firm at the center of an investigation into
misconduct surrounding the processing of payments from BP PLC's
Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement must return $357,000 paid
to a client based on allegedly fraudulent claims.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ordered that shrimper Casey Thonn
return the payments within 30 days.  Judge Barbier also found that
the AndryLerner firm, which received $35,700 in fees, and
principals Jonathan Andry and Glen Lerner were responsible for the
restitution.

The judgment also applied to Lionel "Tiger" Sutton, an attorney
who received fees for referring Mr. Thonn to AndryLerner, as well
as Mr. Thonn's accounting firm.

Attorneys for Andry, Lerner and Sutton did not respond to requests
for comment.

BP, which continues to assert in court filings that fraud has
tainted its estimated $9.2 billion settlement, praised the
judgment -- the first to order the return of an oil spill claim
payment.

"The court's final judgment shows that the law is beginning to
catch up with the fraudsters -- and that the plaintiffs' lawyers
and other advisers who assist them will also not be permitted to
benefit from that deceit," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell wrote in an
emailed statement.

The judgment, handed down on July 16, affirmed findings by former
FBI director Louis Freeh, appointed by Judge Barbier as special
master to investigate the claims process.  On Sept. 6, Freeh
concluded that Andry, Lerner and Sutton, who later worked at the
claims office, had been involved in fraudulently filing the Thonn
claim.  He recommended sanctions against all three lawyers, plus
Mr. Sutton's wife, Christine Reitano, who also worked at the
claims office.

All four have denied allegations of fraud.  AndryLerner also has
sought to lift a freeze that Mr. Freeh put on payments to hundreds
of its other clients.

Mr. Freeh moved for restitution of the Thonn claim on Jan. 8. In
court papers, Andry, Lerner and AndryLerner sought dismissal of
that action, claiming they had no knowledge of any fraud.
Mr. Sutton also moved to dismiss, saying that he didn't represent
Mr. Thonn when the claim was made.

On April 29, Judge Barbier found that restitution was proper. He
concluded that Mr. Thonn's claims, which AndryLerner filed on his
behalf in 2012, were based on unfiled tax returns.

"Here, Thonn's fraud undermines the integrity of the entire
settlement program; therefore, while it is unfortunate that his
misrepresentations were not detected earlier, such an oversight
does not allow the court to give Thonn a free pass now," he wrote.
He extended his findings to include Thonn's professionals,
including his lawyers, all of whom were paid on a contingent fee
basis.

Since then, BP has sought restitution from additional claimants
who received allegedly excessive payments. BP bases such requests
on revised calculations set forth in a U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit's ruling last year.

Last month, Mr. Freeh moved to return a $50,000 payment to another
AndryLerner client, Jarrod Burrle, based on an allegedly
fraudulent claim for lost blue crab revenue.  In a filing on
July 21, Mr. Freeh noted that $12,500 of the payment went to
AndryLerner and two other firms, the Palazzo Law Firm in Gretna,
La., and David Bravo of the Bravo Law Firm in New Orleans, who
allegedly received referral fees.  Responses to Mr. Freeh's
request are due on July 25.  Neither Bravo nor Leo Palazzo of the
Palazzo Law Firm responded to requests for comment.


CATERPILLAR INC: "White" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled White Knight Limousine, Inc. v.
Caterpillar Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01229, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden).  The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04597 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Caterpillar Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2540 and Lead Case No. 1:14-cv-03722-JBS-JS.

The litigation arises out of allegations that an exhaust emission
control system, called the Caterpillar Regeneration System, used
in certain model year C13 and C15 engines manufactured by
Caterpillar, is defective.  In the actions, the Plaintiffs allege
that buses or trucks in which these engines were installed
suffered repeated failures and fault warnings, resulting in costly
and time-consuming repairs.  The plaintiffs assert claims for
breach of express and implied warranties, and all of the actions
are asserted on behalf of putative state or nationwide classes of
purchasers or lessees of vehicles with C13 or C15 engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1340
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: Rich@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Ave., 3rd Floor
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: Jamie@complexlitgroup.com
                  Zachary@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7980
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: JShub@SeegerWeiss.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com


CHICHESTER SCHOOL: Accused of Illegal Transfer of Students
----------------------------------------------------------
S.S., a minor, by and through his Parent, Toni Y. Streeter and
Steven L. Streeter, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Chichester School District, Barbara
DiMarino, Superintendent in her official capacity as
Superintendent of the Chichester School District, Christine
Murrin, in her official capacity of Supervisor of Special
Education, and Dr. Siobhan Leavy, in her official capacity of
Director of Pupil Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-04272 (E.D. Pa., July
16, 2014), is brought on behalf of Chichester school children with
autism seeking elimination of the illegal policy to transfer
students with autism without basis of doing so, without providing
consultations with the parents on an individual basis, and without
a plan if action to facilitate the transfer.

The Chichester School District is a school district within the
Commonwealth Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonidas N. Koletas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LEONIDAS N. KOLETAS
      101 E 8TH Ave Suite 208
      Conshohocken, PA 19428-1773
      Telephone: (484) 674-1490
      Facsimile: (484) 342-0001
      E-mail: lkoletas@aol.com


CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn M. Tompkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  China XD Plastics Company Ltd., Jie Han,
and Taylor Zhang, Case No. 1:14-cv-05359 (S.D.N.Y., July 16,
2014), seeks to pursue remedies against the Defendant and certain
of its officers and directors for violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act.

China XD Plastics Company Ltd. is a specialty chemical company
that is engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and
sale of modified and engineering plastics products primarily for
use in the fabrication of automobile parts and components.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Ill 60603
      Telephone: (312)377-1181
      Facsimile: (312)377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls About 895,000 SUVs Over Wiring Problem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hirsch, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Chrysler
Group is recalling about 895,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge
Durango sport-utility vehicles because of a wiring problem that
could start a fire.

The automaker said if one of these vehicles needs a repair that
includes servicing the vanity mirror and/or headliner, the wiring
-- located inside the sun visor -- may be subject to short-circuit
and fire if not appropriately reassembled by the dealer.  The
headliner is the upholstered roof on the interior of the vehicles.

But the problem has not been reported in vehicles that have not
had the headliner or vanity mirror serviced.  Chrysler said it
knows of three injuries linked to the problem.

The recall campaign includes 2011-14 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge
Durango models.  An estimated 651,000 vehicles are in the U.S.;
45,700 are in Canada; 23,000 are in Mexico and 175,000 are outside
of North America.

Dealers will install a spacer containing a guide that will keep
the lines properly routed, preventing a potential short-circuit
during reassembly.  The automaker said it will do the work on all
of the recalled vehicles, regardless of whether the vanity mirror
and/or headliner has been serviced.

This recall brings the number of vehicles called back by
automakers in the U.S. to about 40 million so far this year,
surpassing the previous high of 30.8 million set in 2004.

General Motors, which has had problems with ignition switches in a
wide selection of its vehicles, accounts for about 26 million of
the recalled autos.

But there also have been large recalls by Toyota, Ford, Honda and
others.  The rest of the industry has recalled about 14 million
vehicles so far this year, about two-thirds of the number all
automakers recalled in the U.S. in all of last year, according to
data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


CIRCLE K: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act in Fla., Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Del Pilar Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion, and Sagar
Daliya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion v. Circle K Stores Inc., a
foreign corporation; Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC dba Circle K, a
foreign corporation; Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. dba Circle K, a
foreign corporation; and Mid-Atlantic Convenience Stores, LLC, dba
Circle K, a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00404-SPC-CM
(M.D. Fla., July 21, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley A. Tobin, Esq.
          Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq.
          FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
          501 N Reo St.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: btobin@ffmlawgroup.com
                  dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Richards, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01402-UN4
(M.D. Pa., July 21, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore E. Lorenz, Esq.
          FLITTER LORENZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 668-0018
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552
          E-mail: lorenz@consumerslaw.com


COCA-COLA CO: "Phelps" Suit Consolidated in Orange Juice MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gwen Phelps v. The Coca-Cola
Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-05198, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California  to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).
The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00645-
FJG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re: Simply Orange Orange Juice Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2361.

The litigation arises out of allegations that not-from-concentrate
orange juice produced and sold by Simply Orange is deceptively
marketed as "100% Pure Squeezed Orange Juice," when in fact the
orange juice is extensively processed.  The Plaintiffs allege,
inter alia, that Simply Orange deoils, deaerates, and pasteurizes
its orange juice, then stores the juice in refrigerated tanks for
long periods of time, and adds chemically-engineered substances to
mimic the flavor of "natural" orange juice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilbert Perez, III, Esq.
          Olivier A. Taillieu, Esq.
          NATIONAL INJURY LAW FIRM LLP
          450 N. Roxbury
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 651-2434
          Facsimile: (310) 651-2439
          E-mail: gperez@nationalinjuryLF.com
                  o@taillieulaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Agnes Markarian Sullivan, Esq.
          Nelson L. Atkins, Esq.
          GONZALEZ SAGGIO AND HARLAN LLP
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 890
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 487-1400
          Facsimile: (213) 487-1402
          E-mail: amarkarian@hernlaw.com
                  nelson_atkins@gshllp.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Riffle, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., a Washington
corporation, and LVNV Funding LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 6:14-cv-01181-ACC-TBS (M.D. Fla., July 21,
2014), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald Edward Petersen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN
          801 N Magnolia Ave., Suite 221
          PO Box 1948
          Orlando, FL 32802-1948
          Telephone: (407) 648-9050
          E-mail: depecf@cfl.rr.com


COVISINT CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadean Burnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Covisint Corporation, David A. McGuffie, Enrico
Digirolamo, Robert C. Paul, Bernard M. Goldsmith, William O.
Grabe, Ralph J. Szygenda, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Evercore Group L.L.C, and Pacific Crest Securities LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-05361 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2014), alleges that the
Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing its preparation.

Covisint Corporation provides a cloud engagement platform in the
United States and internationally.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is based in New York, New York,
is a financial services company that advises clients in all
aspects of finance, serving companies, institutional clients and
high-net-worth private clients worldwide.

Evercore Group L.L.C. is an independent investment banking
advisory firm headquartered in New York, New York.

Pacific Crest Securities LLC is an independent investment bank
headquartered in Portland.

The individual defendants are directors of Covisint Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Telephone: (312)377-1181
      Facsimile: (312)377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00979-CB
(W.D. Pa., July 21, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Illegal Manipulation of Generic Opana ER
----------------------------------------------------------------
Value Drug Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05416 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2014), seeks treble damages
arising out of the Defendants' unlawful scheme to allocate the
market for extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which Endo
sells under the brand name Opana ER.

As part of defendants' unlawful scheme, Endo paid Impax over $112
million in cash in exchange for Impax agreeing to keep its less
expensive, generic version of Opana ER out of the market for two
and a half years -- from June 2010 to January 2013 -- during which
time Endo switched the market for Opana ER to a new formulation of
Opana ER.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern,
Pennsylvania 19355. Until May 2012, Endo Health Solutions Inc. was
known as Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.

Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. was acquired by Endo Pharmaceuticals
Holdings Inc. on November 4, 2010. Prior, Penwest was a Washington
corporation and Endo and Penwest developed and marketed Opana ER
together.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 30831 Huntwood Avenue, Hayward,
California 94544.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan M. Cramer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JORDAN M. CRAMER, PC
      5225 Old Orchard Road, Suite 24B
      Skokie, IL 60077
      Telephone: (847) 983-4550
      Facsimile: (847) 983-4459
      E-mail: jcramer@jcramerlaw.com


FINLEY CATERING: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
former employee of a Philadelphia catering company has filed a
class action suit accusing the company of avoiding the payment of
overtime to the staff by altering the hours worked by eligible
employees.

William Pew filed the suit at the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of 70 employees of
Finley Catering Co., Inc., which serves events held at various
locations throughout the city, including the Crystal Tea Room, the
Ballroom at the Ben, Union Trust and the Clothier Room.  The
complaint alleges that Finley violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and seeks
damages in the form of unpaid wages and coverage of court costs.

According to the complaint, Pew worked for Finley between 2010 and
2014 as one of 70 employees earning an hourly wage performing food
preparation and other kitchen work.  The nature of the catering
business meant that some weeks could become much busier than other
weeks.  An employee could work fewer than 40 hours one week and at
least 50 another.

The complaint alleges that the management at Finley would not
properly record the overtime hours for the weeks that employees
worked longer than 40 hours. Instead, the overage is credited for
a future week when an employee might clock in fewer than 40 hours.

"For example, under this payment scheme," the complaint says, "if
an employee works 47 hours during a particular week, he is paid
for 40 hours.  Then, if the employee only works 24 hours during a
subsequent week, he might be paid for 31 hours."

Those 31 hours were paid at the employee's regular hourly rate.
The claim says this practice violated the FLSA and PMWA by not
compensating the staff at the required overtime rate of time-and-
a-half, or 150 percent.

"This rule is well-established, and defendant's failure to comply
with the rule constitutes willful conduct undertaken in reckless
disregard of the FLSA," the complaint says.

The plaintiff is represented by Peter Winebrake, of Winebrake &
Santillo in Dresher, Pa.

The federal case ID number is 2:14-cv-04246-JS.


FIRST SERVICE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaspar Gabrielyan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. First Service Residential New York, Inc., F/K/A Cooper
Square Realty, Bay Shore Gardens Owners, Inc., Boris, Meydid and
Yakov Pesochinsky, Case No. 1:14-cv-04349 (E.D.N.Y., July 16,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

First Service Residential New York, Inc. is a management company
for residential buildings.

Bay Shore Gardens Owners, Inc. owns and/or operates residential
buildings including 2906 Brighton 12th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


FRESH SPROUT: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to E. Coli
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage), Microbiological -
                          Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fresh Sprout International Ltd.
Distribution:             Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,
                          Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
                          Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9064

Affected products: 454 g. Fresh Sprouts Fresh Bean Sprouts


GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Bikano Navratan Due to Undeclared Gluten
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gagan Foods International Limited
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9017

Affected products: 150 g. Bikano Navratan Mixture


GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Disclose Defects, "Turpyn" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Turpyn and Richard Turpyn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, General
Motors Corporation and Delphi Automotive Plc, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05328 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2014), alleges that the defendants
failed to disclose and have covered up a known dangerous and
defective ignition switch in General Motors vehicles.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, with
its principal place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center,
Detroit, Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10,
2009 acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain
liabilities of its predecessor in interest General Motors
Corporation through the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Gillingham, Kent,
United Kingdom, and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive
Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. Delphi
began as a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation,
until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation
in 1999.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Rafael Straus, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      600 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 577-0040
      Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
      E-mail: astraus@motleyrice.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "DePalma" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned DePalma, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00681, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-05501-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Kocher, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Plance, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: ckocher@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Price, Esq.
          Paul T. Oven, Esq.
          Sean P. McDonough, Esq.
          DOUGHERTY LEVENTHAL & PRICE, LLP
          75 Glenmaura National Blvd.
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Telephone: (570) 347-1011
          Facsimile: (570) 347-7028
          E-mail: jprice@dlplaw.com
                  ptoven@dlplaw.com
                  smcdonough@dlplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          Facsimile: (215) 732-8060
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Bloomer, Esq.
          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  leonid.feller@kirkland.com
                  rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  robert.ellis@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Francis J. Grey, Esq.
          RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY
          1515 Market Street, Suite 700
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 320-3260
          Facsimile: (215) 320-3261
          E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Holliday" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Holliday, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00271, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05506-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
          WELLER GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL LLP
          2615 Calder, Suite 400
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Telephone: (409) 838-0101
          Facsimile: (409) 832-8577
          E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ross v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03670, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-05503-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Sudarsana Srinivasan, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  dsrinivasan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  csf@caddellchapman.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over False Safety Ratings on Cadillacs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Boston-based law firm, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, on July 17
disclosed that it has filed a Class Action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
General Motors (GM) on behalf of its client, Cadillac owner Geri
Siano Carriuolo, and other purchasers of General Motors cars that
had new car window labels (called Monroney stickers) with false
crash safety ratings.  The new car window sticker on Ms.
Carriuolo's 2014 Cadillac CTS Sedan falsely stated that that model
Cadillac had been subjected to three different crash tests --
Frontal Crash Driver, Frontal Crash Passenger, and Rollover -- by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and had
obtained a five-star rating by the NHTSA (the highest possible
rating) for each of those crash tests.

GM has since admitted that the 2014 Cadillac CTS Sedan, the CTS
VSport, and other Cadillac models not only had not received
five-star crash test ratings, they in fact had not been crash
tested by the NHTSA at all! In addition to Shapiro Haber & Urmy,
the plaintiff and the class are represented by the West Palm
Beach, Florida law firms: Liggio Benrubi PA --
http://www.liggiolaw.com-- and Clark, Fountain, La Vista,
Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin -- http://www.clarkfountain.com/

The complaint alleges that as a result of GM's false
representations regarding the crash test results, the plaintiff
and class members suffered damages due to the significant decrease
in the value of the cars they purchased.  The plaintiff seeks to
recover those damages for herself and other purchasers of those
cars.

The class action is entitled Geri Siano Carriuolo v. General
Motors Company, No. 14-61429.  The complaint filed in that action
can be seen at http://www.shulaw.com/GM/Complaint/

If you would like more information about this case or GM's falsely
representing crash test results, please call attorney Edward Haber
or attorney Patrick Vallely at (617) 439-3939 or 1-800-287-8119,
or e-mail shu@shulaw.com

For more information about the investigation and about the law
firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, please visit
http://www.shulaw.com/GM/


GENERAL MOTORS: Millikin "Deeply Sorry" for Switch Defect Handling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Michael Millikin, general counsel of General Motors Co., told
skeptical senators on July 17 that he was "deeply sorry" for his
legal department's handling of an ignition-switch defect and was
working to make sure a similar scandal doesn't happen again.
Mr. Millikin, in his first testimony under oath before lawmakers
investigating GM, said he and his colleagues at the company are
"committed to setting a new industry standard for safety, quality
and excellence."

Members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee's consumer protection, product safety and insurance
subcommittee grilled Mr. Millikin about why his legal department
failed to report problems with the switch.  GM this year has
recalled 2.6 million vehicles for faulty switches that the company
has tied to 13 deaths.  The company has created a fund to
compensate victims and a federal judge is considering whether it
committed a fraud on the court by concealing the defect during its
2009 bankruptcy.

With GM chief executive officer Mary Barra at his side,
Mr. Millikin said the company has purged itself of in-house
counsel who "did not do their jobs; didn't do what was expected of
them."  Now the company has in-house lawyers who are "hardworking,
dedicated professionals of the highest integrity," he said.


GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Pilichowsky" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jahon Pilichowsky, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. General Revenue Corporation, Case No. 2:14-
cv-05630-MRP-JPR (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2014) alleges violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Assal Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  assal@kazlg.com


GIANT EAGLE: "Gabriel" Suit Removed to Western District of Penn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc., et
al., Case No. GD-14-007257, was removed from the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00980-MPK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Samuel Malkin, Esq.
          FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
          409 Broad Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 741-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 741-9292
          E-mail: bmalkin@ferencelaw.com

Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., is represented by:

          Sarah C. Yerger, Esq.
          POST & SCHELL, P.C.
          17 North Second Street, 12th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 612-6030
          Facsimile: (717) 731-1985
          E-mail: syerger@postschell.com


GREEN WORLD: Recalls Abido Crispy Cover Fish Mixed Cover Mix
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Green World Food Express Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9046

The food recall warning issued on July 4, 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.

Green World Food Express Inc. is recalling Abido brand Crispy
cover fish mixed Cover Mix from the marketplace because it
contains milk which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

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

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the CFIA test results.  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.

Affected products: 500 g. Abido Crispy cover fish mixed Cover Mix
with all codes where milk is not declared on the label


HAIN CELESTIAL: Judge Dismisses "Raw" Juice Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John Browning -- jbrowning@proskauer.com -- and Alexander Kaplan
-- akaplan@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, report that on July 2, 2014 Judge Vince Chhabria
dismissed a class action alleging that Hain Celestial Group, a
manufacturer of "raw" juices, misleadingly labelled and advertised
its wares.  This dismissal is noteworthy -- and should stand as a
cautionary tale -- because the class plaintiffs eviscerated their
own claims and pleaded themselves out of court by citing two
articles in their complaint that indisputably contradicted their
arguments.

The premise of the complaint was that Hain misled consumers by
promoting its juices as "100% Raw," "Raw and Organic," and/or
"Unpasteurized" since "just like pasteurization, the pressure
treatment used by the defendants deprives juice of nutritional
value, and that because the defendants do not disclose this, their
representations about not cooking juice are misleading."  So far,
so good: as the court noted, these allegations were plausible on
their own.

However, the class plaintiffs decided to fortify their argument
with some science and cited two academic articles, thus
incorporating them by reference. Unfortunately (for the class),
these articles "repeatedly make the point that pressurization has
less impact on nutritional value than pasteurization."  Judge
Chhabria distilled some of the more damning quotations from each
piece: "[pressurization] has little or no effects on nutritional
and sensory quality aspects on foods" and "[pressurization]
maintains the quality of fresh foods, with few direct effects on
flavor and little effect on nutritional quality."

Despite the class plaintiffs' valiant efforts to argue that the
articles did not in fact say what they in fact said, it was clear
that their juice was cooked: Judge Chhabria wrote unflinchingly,
"The articles the plaintiffs cite thus contradict the allegation
upon which their entire complaint hinges -- namely, that pressure
treatment deprives juice of nutritional value to a similar degree
as pasteurization."


HARRIS VENTURES: "Ward" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Ward, for himself and others similarly situated v. Harris
Ventures, Inc. d/b/a  Staff Zone, & Ryan O. Chism, individually,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00192 (M.D. Ga., July 16, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Harris Ventures, Inc. is a staffing agency, with principal place
of business located at 2650 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 630,
Alpharetta, Georgia 30022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Roper, Esq.
      THE ROPER LAW FIRM
      5353 Veterans Pkwy Ste A
      Columbus, GA 31904
      Telephone: (706) 596-5353
      E-mail: johnroper@roperlaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Former Autonomy CEO Challenges Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the former
chief financial officer of Autonomy Inc. is trying to upend a
settlement between Hewlett-Packard Co. and the two plaintiffs
firms leading securities derivative litigation against the company
over its disastrous $11 billion purchase of Autonomy.

Sushovan Hussain, represented by John Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com --
and a team from Keker & Van Nest, filed a motion to intervene on
July 21, calling the deal "collusive and unfair." Under the
agreement, proposed late last month, HP would pay the plaintiffs
firms at least $18 million, plus contingency awards, to go after
Mr. Hussain and other former Autonomy executives.

"HP insiders pay nothing and are absolved of all wrongdoing, and
the respected plaintiffs' lawyers get at least $18 million and as
much as $48 million for 'assisting' some other law firm to sue
Autonomy's former officers," Mr. Keker wrote.  "Any normal person
would say, 'Are you kidding me?'"

The settlement would release HP officers from claims they hid
warning signs the acquisition would end up tanking and costing
shareholders.  In exchange, plaintiffs attorneys with Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd would team up
with HP attorneys to go after former Autonomy executives who they
say are really to blame for the drop in HP's stock.  Plaintiffs
attorneys would work under HP's legal team, led by Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz partner Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com
-- in New York.

The settlement agreement names Mr. Hussain and former Autonomy CEO
Michael Lynch as specific targets.  In a statement, HP spokesman
Howard Clabo called Mr. Hussain's opposition to the settlement
baseless.

"We look forward to the day when a jury gets to hear the evidence
of Mr. Hussain's conduct," he wrote.  "We strongly believe that at
the end of the process, the jury will conclude that Mr. Hussain
engaged in a multibillion dollar fraud."

The idea to unite plaintiffs counsel and HP's legal team against
Autonomy came from an independent committee counseled by
Washington, D.C.-based securities litigator Ralph Ferrara --
rferrara@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose.  Retired U.S.
District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker helped negotiate the
settlement, which attorneys described as an "unusual resolution"
in their motion for preliminary approval.

Mr. Keker accuses the plaintiffs' team of selling out
shareholders.  Up until now, the lawyers raised serious
allegations against HP's management and board and pushed back
against the company's attempts to shift blame to Autonomy, he
wrote.

"Now, suddenly," Mr. Keker wrote, "plaintiffs' counsel do a total
about-face, buying the very story they rejected last year."

The Keker team, which also includes partners Jan Nielsen Little --
jlittle@kvn.com -- and Brook Dooley -- bdooley@kvn.com -- and
associate Nicholas Marais -- nmarais@kvn.com -- argues HP's board
of directors is accountable for the failed merger.  HP executives
ignored arguments from CFO Catherine Lesjak that the acquisition
was a bad idea and undermined the merger after it went through,
according to the filing. More than a year later, CEO Meg Whitman
"cried fraud" and wrote down the deal by $8.8 billion, according
to Mr. Keker.

Mr. Keker declined to comment. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
is expected to consider the proposed settlement at a hearing next
month.

The motion to intervene also takes issue with language that
appears to broadly bar further legal action based on the Autonomy
acquisition.  That unfairly prohibits Mr. Hussain from asserting
claims or counterclaims to defend himself against HP, Mr. Keker
wrote.

"HP seeks to forever bury from disclosure the real reason for its
2012 write-down of Autonomy: HP's own destruction of Autonomy's
success after the acquisition," he wrote.  "HP seeks to absolve
itself of its own responsibility for its losses."


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Fifth Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. on July 17 disclosed that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed the
District Court's prior dismissal of the previously disclosed
securities class action lawsuit brought against the company.  The
appellate court ruling focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings
in the case, made no determination regarding the merits of the
factual allegations, and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings.

               About Houston American Energy Corp.

Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp. --
http://www.houstonamericanenergy.com-- is an independent energy
company with interests in oil and natural gas wells and prospects.
The Company's business strategy includes a property mix of
producing and non-producing assets with a focus on Colombia, Texas
and Louisiana.


IMPERIAL, CA: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Emmet Fried, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. County of Imperial, Case No. 3:14-cv-01674 (S.D.
Cal., July 16, 2014), seeks backpay, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney fees and costs for failure to pay overtime in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

County of Imperial is a political subdivision of the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac Sean Stevens, Esq.
      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN
      1912 I Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


IOWA: State Supreme Court Set to Rule on Hiring Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Iowa Supreme Court was expected to rule on July 18 on whether to
reinstate a class-action lawsuit claiming the Iowa executive
branch has systematically discriminated against black job
applicants.

Current and former black applicants contend that state agencies
for decades have favored whites in interview and hiring decisions.
The case is based on statistics that suggest blacks received fewer
interviews and jobs than whites at some agencies and social
science research contending that Americans subtly favor whites
over blacks.

A judge dismissed the case two years ago, finding the plaintiffs
didn't prove their allegations.

Justices have taken 10 months to deliberate after oral arguments.
The unusually long period suggests there may be deep divisions on
the court.


KING'S VEGETARIAN: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           King's Vegetarian Food Manufacturing Co.
                          Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9024


KING'S VEGETARIAN: Recalls Vegetarian Food Brand Dim Sum Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds, Allergen - Soy,
                          Allergen - Sulphites, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           King's Vegetarian Food Manufacturing Co.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8962

King's Vegetarian Food Manufacturing Co. is recalling dim sum
products from the marketplace because they contain wheat, soy,
sesame and sulphites which are not declared on the label.  People
with an allergy to wheat, soy or sesame or a sensitivity to
sulphites should not consume the recalled products.

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 wheat, soy, or sesame or a sensitivity
to sulphites 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 PRODUITS: Recalls McLean Syrup Due to Swollen Packages
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Produits Alimentaires Berthelet Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9052


LOS MUCHACHOS: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amado De Jesus Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Los Muchachos Restaurant Corp. d/b/a La
Nueva Estrella, and Judy Diaz, in her individual and professional
capacities, and Antonk Almonte in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05360 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2014),
seeks to bring this suit to recover from Defendants full payment
of all unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation and liquidated
damages pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Los Muchachos Restaurant Corp. is doing business as La Nueva
Estrella restaurant, located at 390 E. 204th Street, #1, Bronx,
New York 10467.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516)248-5550


MERITAS HEALTH: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Meritas Health Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00625
(W.D. Mo., July 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and related penalties and damages.

Meritas Health Corporation operates a hospital in North Kansas
City, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      6 NW Main St.
      Lee's Summit, MO 64063
      Telephone: (913) 890-3529
      E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

        - and -

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
              mwilliams@williamsdirks.com


NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Outdoor Patio Set Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nantucket Distributing Co. LLC, Middleboro, Mass., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,000 Resin Wicker Outdoor Patio Set
Chairs.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The rear legs of the chair can break, posing a fall hazard.

The firm received two reports of the rear chair legs breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Nantucket Distributing resin wicker outdoor
patio set chairs.  The set includes two brown powder coated
outdoor metal resin wicker chairs and a round table with aluminum
top with brown resin wicker trim.  The chairs measures about 23
inches wide by 23 inches deep by 32 inches high.  The table
measures about 24.75 inches in diameter.  The chairs were sold
with a hang tag with item number RT043SET.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/LDCZkE

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Christmas Tree Shops, andThat!, and Christmas Tree Shops andThat!
stores nationwide during March 2014 for about $60 for the entire
set.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled chairs and
return the set or chairs to any Christmas Tree Shops, andThat!, or
Christmas Tree Shops andThat! to receive a full refund for the set
or $17.50 for each chair.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seven Retired Players Appeal Concussion Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kelley, writing for Reuters, reports that seven retired
National Football League players are appealing a recent settlement
between the league and about 5,000 former players stemming from a
lawsuit over concussions suffered on the field, court records
show.

The appeal, filed in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on
July 21, came about two weeks after U.S. District Judge Anita
Brody granted preliminary approval to a settlement that removed a
$675 million cap on awards to former players who were part of the
groundbreaking head injury lawsuit.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs
say 20,000 retired players could be covered under the agreement.

The players filing the appeal said the settlement did not offer
enough to those who had yet to see the worst of their symptoms
appear, and did not cover all diagnoses suffered by players with
head trauma.

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE, a degenerative disease
brought on by repeated head trauma, is one of the most common
brain disorders affecting former players, the appeal states.

The filing is unusual, partly because retired players who have
joined the lawsuit were scheduled to vote on the settlement in
November.  The seven players -- Roderick Cartwright, Sean
Considine, Alan Faneca, Ben Hamilton, Sean Morey, Jeff Rohrer, and
Robert Royal -- say that appealing the settlement after final
approval would be a costly waste of time.

Under the terms reached between the NFL and the former players who
brought the suit, payments of up to $5 million will be guaranteed
to any retired player who develops certain neurological illnesses.

Payments will be based on a formula that considers years played in
the league and age at diagnosis.  The fund is set to last 65 years
from the date it is authorized.

A growing body of academic research shows collisions on the field
can lead to CTE, which can lead to aggression and dementia.

The research has already prompted the NFL to make changes,
including banning the most dangerous helmet-to-helmet hits and
requiring teams to keep players who have taken hits to the head
off the field if they show symptoms including dizziness and memory
gaps.


NIPPON YUSEN: Sued Over Manipulation of Carrier Service Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc., Rush Truck Centers of
California, Inc., Rush Truck Centers of Florida, Inc. et al. v.
Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North America) Inc.,
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (USA). Inc.,
World Logistics Service (USA), Inc., Hough Autoliners AS, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04469 (D.N.J., July 16, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants engage in at least a five year-long conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Vehicle Carrier Services.

Vehicle Carrier Services refers to the paid ocean transportation
of vehicles by Roll on-Roll off vessels.

The Plaintiffs are truck and heavy equipment dealers across the
United States.

The Defendants transport large numbers of cars, medium-and heavy-
duty trucks, and other, new assembled motor vehicles including
buses, commercial vehicles, construction equipment, mining
equipment, and agricultural equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric R. Breslin, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      One Riverfront Plaza
      1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 1800
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 424-2063
      Facsimile: (973) 424-2001
      E-mail: erbreslin@duanemorris.com


OSMOSE INC: Falsely Marketed Preservation Products, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avis James and Oscar James, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Osmose, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00064
(D.V.I., July 16, 2014), is brought to remedy violations of law in
connection with the Defendant's design, manufacture, marketing,
advertising, selling and warranting of their wood preservation
products.

Osmose, Inc. is a preservative manufacturer and formulator engaged
in the business of manufacturing, distributing, formulating, and
supplying preservatives or their components, with its principal
place of business located in Griffin, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
      LEE ROHN
      VI Bar No. 52
      1101 King Street Christiansted
      St. Croix U.S. VI 00820
      Telephone: (340) 778-8855
      Email: lee@rohnlaw.com

        - and-

      Daniel Cohen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      Email: danielc@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Bonnie Prober, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Ave., Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
             bprober@cuneolaw.com


OXOID LIMITED: Recalls Oxoid Legionella Pneumophila 2-14 Reagent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 8, 2014
Posting date:             July 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40549

Recalled products: Oxoid Legionella pneumophila 2-14 Reagent

An internal investigation of Legionella Latex Test Kit DR0800M,
lot 1316151 has confirmed that there is potential for a weak or
negative reaction when using this reagent lot with serogroup 9
isolates.  This may result in a delay to the correct
characterization of L. pneumophila serogroup 9 isolates.

Affected products:

A. Oxoid Legionella pneumophila 2-14 Reagent
Lot or serial number: 1301912, 1316151

Model or catalog number: DR0800M

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Oxoid Limited
                    Wade Road
                    Basingstoke, Hampshire
                    RG24 8PW
                    United Kingdom


PANASONIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Bay Area
plaintiffs attorney Joseph Saveri has launched price-fixing
allegations against more than a dozen electronics manufacturers
over tiny electrical components found in nearly all household
technology.

Among the defendants listed in the 48-page, class action complaint
are Panasonic Corp. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics.  The companies
make electrolytic capacitors, the building blocks of electrical
circuits found by the hundreds in everything from smartphones to
cars.

Mr. Saveri represents Chip-Tech Ltd., a New York company that
sells capacitors and other electronic products.  The suit accuses
defendants of conspiring to fix prices after global capacitor
revenues began to drop in 2000.

"To slow any further decline in demand, and to ensure that sales
of their respective product portfolios would remain profitable,
defendants agreed that price competition . . . had to cease,"
Mr. Saveri wrote in the complaint, filed late on July 18 in the
Northern District of California.

Defendants have been secretly scheming to control market prices
for roughly a decade, according to Mr. Saveri.  "As a result,
plaintiff and the class paid artificially inflated prices for the
capacitors they directly purchased from defendants," he wrote.

Collusion in the capacitor market has attracted the attention of
law enforcement locally and overseas, according to the complaint,
which cites an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice, as well as investigations and raids by agencies in China,
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe.


PEACHTREE LIGHTING: ETLus Certified Compact Fluorescent Luminaries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 14, 2014
Posting date:             July 14, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Electrical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40555

The recall involves recessed NON-IC type downlight compact
fluorescent luminaries manufactured by Peachtree Lighting.  The
recalled lights have a label on the underside of the product and
are identified by model/catalogue number PSFT (followed by
additional digits/letters) and bear a cETLus certification mark.
The affected lights were manufactured prior to April 13, 2012.

The lights may overheat, causing the conductors to become brittle
and the insulation to fall off.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

The number of lights sold is unknown and the time period sold is
unknown.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Peachtree Lighting, Inc. (no longer in
                    business)
                    Covington
                    Georgia
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the affected lights immediately.


PETROLOGISTICS LP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 16 disclosed that it filed a class action
lawsuit on June 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, and docketed under 4:14-cv-
01786, on behalf of the unitholders of PetroLogistics LP against
PetroLogistics, its Board of Directors, its general partner
(PetroLogistics GP LLC), Propylene Holdings LLC, Flint Hills
Resources, LLC, and FHR Propylene, LLC for, among other things,
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition
of PetroLogistics by Flint Hill.

The complaint arises out of a May 8, 2014 press release in which
PetroLogistics and Flint Hills, a subsidiary of Koch Industries,
Inc., jointly announced that they entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Flint Hills will pay PetroLogistics'
public unitholders $14.00 in cash for each common unit they own.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all other similarly situated unitholders of
PetroLogistics.  The named plaintiff is represented by Pomerantz
LLP.

The named plaintiff alleges (i) on his behalf and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, that certain of the defendants breached,
or aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of, their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care and candor owed to
PetroLogistics unitholders; and (ii) on his behalf, that in an
attempt to secure unitholder approval of the Proposed Transaction,
the defendants filed a materially false and misleading preliminary
proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC in violation of Sec.
14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material to PetroLogistics unitholders' ability to
make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed
Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from July 15, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please 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.  Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent Class member.

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.


PL PHASE ONE: Does Not Pay Tipped Employees Properly, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benton Holroyd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PL Phase One Operations GP, Inc. d/b/a Xfinity Live;
PL Phase One Operations LP d/b/a Xfinity Live; PL Phase One
Investors, LP d/b/a Xfinity Live; CSLP Phase One Operator, LP
d/b/a Xfinity Live; PL Phase One GP, Inc.; CSLP Phase One GP, LLC;
and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-04285 (E.D. Pa., July
16, 2014), systematically and willfully denies its Tipped
Employees all wages due and owing under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

PL Phase One Operations GP, Inc. operates a dining and
entertainment complex.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


PODRAVKA: Recalls Luncheon Meat Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Eurotrade Import - Export Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9053

Eurotrade Import - Export Inc. is recalling Podravka brand
Luncheon Meat from the marketplace because it contains milk which
is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk
should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

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

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

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.


POPKILLER: Recalls USB Chargers, Adapters and Cables
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Shenzhen Qiwei Electronic Co., Ltd., Guangdong, China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,500 USB car charger adapters, power
adapters and 8-pin charger cables.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Improperly mounted plug blades, and inadequate electronic
circuitry create a fire and electrical shock hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Popkiller mini USB car charger power adapters,
universal USB power adapters and 8-pin USB data sync charging
cables.  The car charger has model number HHT-001 located on the
flat side of the charger below the USB port.  The charger measures
2 inches tall and 1 inch in diameter at its widest point.  The
Universal USB Power adapter has model number A1265 printed
directly above the plug blades on the grey surface.  The adapter
measures 1.5 inches at its longest point and 1 inch wide.  There
is no model number printed on the 8-pin USB charging cables.  All
of the recalled products are sold separately and come in the
colors red, orange, green, blue, purple and pink.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/EAr94S

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
popkiller retail locations in Los Angeles and Costa Mesa,
California, from June 2013 through April 2014 for about $4.50 to
$6.50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the phone accessories and
return the product to a store where sold or send to Popkiller
Headquarters for a full merchandise credit.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Camera Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Meisner, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
Northwest Side man filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on
July 17 seeking at least $100 million from the scandal-plagued
company that ran the city's red light camera program, claiming
that an alleged bribery scheme exposed by the Tribune should
nullify the company's profits.

Matthew Faulkner filed his federal complaint on behalf of anyone
who paid a fine for a red light violation issued by the city from
2003 to 2013 when Redflex Traffic Systems administered the
program.  Attached to the lawsuit were documents showing Faulkner
paid a $100 fine in early 2013 after his Nissan Infiniti was
recorded going through a red light at the intersection of 76th
Street and Stony Island Avenue.

The complaint outlines the Redflex scandal that erupted in October
2012 after the Tribune obtained a two-year-old internal Redflex
whistleblower memo by an ousted vice president that detailed the
alleged bribery scheme, including lavish company-paid vacations
for former city transportation official John Bills.

Mr. Bills, a longtime City Hall insider who headed the city's red
light camera program until 2011, was arrested in May and charged
by federal prosecutors with plotting to steer the contract to
Redflex before the first ticket was ever issued in 2003.
Mr. Bills coached Redflex officials in a series of clandestine
meetings and helped them grow their program into the largest in
the country, authorities alleged.

In return, prosecutors alleged, Bills received hundreds of
thousands of dollars in cash spent on a vacation home, a boat and
a Mercedes convertible, along with dozens of trips and a
condominium near the company's Arizona headquarters.

"As such, Redflex's $100 million (+) in revenue since 2003
generated under the corrupt contract represents ill-gotten gains
that have unjustly enriched Redflex . . . and should be
disgorged," Mr. Faulkner's lawsuit said.

Mr. Bills has denied any wrongdoing and is awaiting trial.
Neither Redflex nor any company officials have been criminally
charged, though the city canned Redflex last year in the wake of
the scandal.


REGIS CORP: Removed "Rodriguez" Suit to Central District of Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Virginia Rodriguez v. Regis
Corporation, et al., Case No. MCC1400912, was removed from the
Riverside Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Riverside).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01494-SJO-JEM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          SAHAG MAJARIAN II LAW OFFICES
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catherine M. Dacre, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Kim, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: dkim@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Klein, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau Inc. a/k/a
American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:14-cv-04411-CBA-JO
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANJAY'S FOODS: Recalls Beef Jamaican Patty Hot
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sanjay's Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:   9051

Affected products: 3 kg. Sanjay'sBeef Jamaican Patty Hot where egg
is not declared on the label


SATINSKY: South Africa Court to Hear R699 Car Scam Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Allan Williams at HeraldLIVE,
the Port Elizabeth High Court (South Africa) agreed on July 16 to
hear a case on July 22 that would be the first step in a massive
class action on behalf of consumers left out of pocket by the
alleged R699 car scam.

The court action, led by Port Elizabeth attorney Duncan Heuer,
follows an announcement by the National Credit Regulator (NCR)
that it is investigating the scheme.  This comes after thousands
of motorists -- the latest estimate is about 17000 -- were lured
into buying new cars by an attractive offer that was meant to have
seen them paying significantly reduced monthly installments.

However, since Satinsky -- the company managing the deals -- cut
ties with its Hong Kong-based holding company, many clients have
been lumped with much higher installments they simply cannot
afford.

Mr. Heuer explained that he and his legal team took the case on a
contingency basis which meant that, if they won, they would
recover their costs from Satinsky and the three banks that
provided credit for the purchase of the vehicles.  He said his
team had so far registered the cases of 167 consumers but had been
inundated by others also wanting to take part in the class action.

Mr. Heuer said at this stage only one consumer's case would be
presented to the court to serve as an example of how the greater
class of consumers were suffering as a result of the collapse of
the scheme.  He would then ask the court to certify other affected
consumers from around the country as a class.  The ruling of the
court would thus be applicable to everyone who bought a car
through the scheme.

Mr. Heuer said once his team received the go-ahead from a court to
bring a class action they would apply for legal relief on behalf
of the many thousands of affected consumers.  The most pressing
application would be for an interdict to stop the banks from
collecting car payments at the end of this month.

Mr. Heuer said that after the high court on July 16 certified
their legal action as urgent, he could now serve papers by fax.

The respondents in the court case would be Satinsky along with
Absa, Standard Bank and Nedbank.  He said the NCR and Wesbank had
also been added to the legal action.  He explained they were not
seeking any relief against Wesbank but wanted them to explain what
investigations they had done against Satinsky eight years ago, and
why Wesbank decided at the time not to provide credit to consumers
wanting to buy cars through the scheme.

Mr. Heuer said he and his team would eventually ask that all
credit agreements made under the R699 scheme be declared void.
This would mean the vehicles would have to be returned to the
banks.

The three banks involved said they would also probe allegations of
massive irregularities in the credit applications of consumers who
had joined the scheme.

As month-end approaches the banks have asked consumers to make
payment arrangements with them if they cannot afford their
installments.

Meanwhile, it was reported that the man behind Mr. Satinsky,
Albert Venter, 50, has continued his life of luxury in the
exclusive Mooikloof Estate in Pretoria and that he owns several
expensive vehicles, including a Ferrari FF, a Porsche Cayenne
Turbo S, a Maserati Spyder and a Nissan Infiniti.


SEARS HOMETOWN: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & PMWA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Ellis, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Sears Hometown And Outlet Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-04279 (E.D. Pa., July 16, 2014), seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Sears Hometown And Outlet Stores, Inc. is a national retailer
primarily focused on selling home appliances, lawn/garden
equipment, tools, and hardware located at 1357 Franklin Mills
Circle, Philadelphia, PA 19154.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Heath Boothe, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-00336 (S.D. Ala., July 21, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com


SOUTH BEACH: Removed "Lucero" Suit to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lucero v. South Beach Group
Hotels, Inc., Case No. 14-13575 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22725-MGC to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Michael Entin, Esq.
          ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A.
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1970
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-7201
          Facsimile: (954) 764-2443
          E-mail: joshentin@comcast.net


SOUTHEAST LINEN: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Cruz Castro, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Southeast Linen Associates, Inc. formerly known as:
Southeast Linen Associates, LLC, a foreign profit corporation and
Florida's Finest Linen, Inc., a Florida for profit corporation,
Case No. 8:14-cv-01724 (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2014), is brought for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Southeast Linen Associates, Inc. operates linen delivery services
in Florida, Georgia and Illinois.

Florida's Finest Linen, Inc. is a subsidiary of Southeast Linen
with operations within Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00989-RCM
(W.D. Pa., July 22, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEPHANIA'S PIEROGIES: Recalls Pork Meat Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Stephania's Pierogies
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9047

Affected products: Stephania's Pierogies Pork Meat with all
products manufactured in May 2014


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sued Over Concealment of Vehicle Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Yaeger and Michael Schuler, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Subaru of America, Inc., a New
Jersey Corporation, Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., a Japanese,
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04490 (D.N.J., July 16, 2014),
arises from Defendants' failure, despite their longstanding
knowledge of a material design defect, to disclose to the
Plaintiffs and other consumers that the Class Vehicles are
predisposed to an oil consumption defect.

Subaru of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. It
is the sales and marketing subsidiary of Fuji and wholly owned
subsidiary responsible for distribution, marketing, sales and
service of Subaru vehicles in the United States.

Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. is a Japanese corporation, which is
responsible for the design, manufacturing, distribution, marketing
sales and service of Subaru vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph G. Sauder
      Benjamin F. Johns
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      E-mail: mds@chimicles.com
              JGS@chimicles.com
              BFJ@chimicles.com

                           *    *     *

Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a class action suit filed in Camden, N.J., federal court says
Subaru cars have an engine defect that causes them to burn
excessive amounts of oil.

According to the suit, class vehicles burn a quart of oil every
1,200 miles.  Defendants Subaru of America and its parent, Fuji
Heavy Industries, are well aware of the defect but failed to warn
customers about the problem or provide any adequate remedy,
according to the suit.

The defect is a safety hazard because it can cause engine failure
while the subject vehicles are operating, according to the suit,
Yaeger v. Subaru of America, 14-cv-4490.

The problem is caused by piston rings that wear out prematurely in
2011-2014 Forester 2.5L, 2013 Legacy 2.5L, 2013 Outback 2.5L,
2012-2013 Impreza 2.0L and 2013 XV Crosstrek 2.0L, according to
the suit.

Subaru of America, whose headquarters is in Cherry Hill, N.J., has
issued technical service bulletins to dealers that recommend
replacement of piston rings in cars that consume excessive oil,
the suit says.  That job requires the removal of the entire engine
from the vehicle and entails 11-13 hours of labor, and class
members have paid or been quoted prices in excess of $8,000 to
perform that job, the suit says.

But the repair recommended in the technical service bulletin
doesn't adequately address the problem, the lawyer who filed the
complaint, Matthew Schelkopf -- MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com --
of Chimicles & Tikellis of Haverford, Pa., said.

"We feel we've identified the issue and we know what the necessary
repair is and we don't feel it's addressed in the TSB,"
Mr. Schelkopf said.  He declined to say what measure he believes
will fix the defect.

The complaint cites numerous postings about the Subaru engine
defects on online message boards and details 11 complaints about
the problem to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In one such NHTSA complaint, according to the filing, the
unidentified owner said, "I bought my 2013 Subaru Impreza and with
approximately 10,000 miles I got a low oil light on.  I found out
my Subaru burns a quart of oil every 2,500-3,000 miles.  That is
unacceptable for a brand new car. Subaru is selling a lemon."

Class representative Keith Yaeger of Escondido, Calif., claims his
2014 Forester began consuming excessive oil when it had 6,000
miles on the odometer, according to the complaint.

The dealership replaced the piston rings on his engine but the oil
consumption problem was not resolved, the suit says.

The other class representative, Michael Schuler of Lakeland, Fla.,
claims his 2013 Outback had 2,200 miles on the odometer when the
low oil warning light illuminated.  He began adding oil to the car
regularly to prevent engine failure, the suit says.  His
dealership told him the car's oil consumption was normal,
prompting him to trade in the car at a loss for another make of
vehicle, according to the complaint.

The suit seeks certification of a nationwide class of owners of
the class vehicles, as well as subclasses for owners in
California, Florida and New Jersey.  The suit claims violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as consumer protection
laws from California and Florida, as well as violation of the
Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act and breach of warranty.

The complaint seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, including an
order requiring the defendants to repair, recall and/or replace
the class vehicles and to extend their warranties. It also seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Subaru of America spokesman Michael McHale said the company is
aware of the suit, and added that, "while we believe the oil
consumption of our vehicles to be within acceptable levels, we
continually work to reduce the amount of consumable goods, such as
oil, that our vehicles require to operate."


SUTTER MEDICAL: Did Not Violate Confidentiality Act, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that Sutter
Medical Foundation did not violate California's medical
confidentiality act, and expose itself to potentially $4 billion
in statutory damages, when a thief stole a computer containing 4
million patients' medical records, the Third District Court of
Appeal ruled on July 21.

The state's medical privacy statute was not triggered because
there's no evidence the thief or anyone else actually looked at
the records, Justice George Nicholson wrote for a unanimous panel.
"The legislation at issue is the 'Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act,' not the Possession of Medical Information Act,"
he wrote.

It's the second appellate decision in the last year to absolve a
health-care center of liability for losing control of patient
medical records.  Sutter Health v. Superior Court reaches the same
outcome as the Second District did in a case where a UCLA
physician's hard drive was stolen from his home, but the reasoning
was slightly different.

In that case, UCLA conceded that patients had adequately pleaded
violation of Section 56.101 of the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, which requires medical facilities to "maintain
and store medical information in a manner that preserves the
confidentiality of that information."  But the Second District
ruled that the UCLA plaintiffs didn't meet the damages provision
of the statute because no actual breach of confidentiality was
shown.

"We agree with this conclusion, but we arrive at the conclusion
differently from the Regents court," Justice Nicholson wrote,
finding no violation of either the liability or damages prongs of
the law.

The case is being closely watched by California's health-care
industry, which is facing at least nine class actions tied to
claims that hospitals and medical groups disclosed patient data in
violation of the confidentiality act.  The California Hospitals
Association, the UC Regents and Consumer Attorneys of California
are among those filing amicus curiae briefs.

Suits were filed after somebody broke into Sutter Medical
Foundation's administrative offices during the weekend of Oct. 15,
2011, and stole a personal computer with a hard drive containing
confidential information for 4 million patients.  The data was
password-protected but not encrypted.  It included health records
for about 1 million patients; for the rest it was limited to
names, addresses, birthdays and medical record numbers.

Plaintiffs, led by C. Brooks Cutter -- bcutter@kcrlegal.com -- of
Sacramento's Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, contend that the theft
caused actual injury by robbing patients of their peace of mind.
While there may not be solid evidence that anyone has cracked into
the data yet, it can be difficult to trace the source of identity
theft, he has argued. And the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act provides $1,000 in statutory damages per violation
for the negligent release of medical information, without any
showing of actual damages.

Robert Bunzel -- rbunzel@bzbm.com -- of Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel &
Miller argued to the Third District last month that nobody's
privacy was violated.  "The history and purpose of the
[confidentiality] statute is all about privacy," Mr. Bunzel told
the court.

The Third District agreed. The liability portion of the statute
explicitly refers to handling records "in a manner that preserves
the confidentiality of the information contained therein," Justice
Nicholson wrote.  "Therefore, it cannot be said that section
56.101 imposes liability if the health care provider simply loses
possession of the medical records.  Something more is necessary --
that is, breach of confidentiality."

The court ordered Sacramento Superior Court Judge David DeAlba to
sustain Sutter's demurrer and further instructed that plaintiffs
be denied leave to amend their complaint, saying there's no
reasonable possibility they can allege actual injury.

Mr. Bunzel referred a call to Sutter.  A spokesman said the
company is "pleased that the judicial process resulted in a ruling
that will end litigation, which, if it had continued, would have
diverted resources better spent on patient care, and would have
increased the likelihood that private patient records would be
used in litigation, even though no injury to patient
confidentiality ever resulted from the theft."

But Brian Kabateck -- bsk@kbklawyers.com -- of Kabateck Brown
Kellner, who litigated the Second District case and represented
amicus Consumer Attorneys, said the courts are imposing a burden
on plaintiffs that the Legislature didn't intend.  "There is a
disconnect between the Regents case, this case and the statute
that will mandate Supreme Court review and clarification," he
said.


TRIDENT ULTRAVIOLET: Recalls Pool UV Sanitization Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 10, 2014
Posting date:             July 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40503

Affected products: Trident Series 2 Ultraviolet Water Treatment
System (sanitation systems for pools)

The electrical repair notice involves all Trident Series 2 (S2)
ultraviolet sanitation systems for pools manufactured between
Feb. 16, 2009 and Sept. 5, 2013.  The sanitation systems are a
gray tube that stands 81.2 cm (32 in) high by 27.9 cm (11 in.) in
diameter.  They are plumbed into the pool's water circulation
pipes and plugged in or hard-wired into an electrical system.
"Trident Ultraviolet Corporation," "Series 2" and "UV Ultraviolet
Sanitation System" are printed on a black label on the front of
the units.  "Trident Series 2 Ultraviolet Water treatment System"
and a series of letters for the date code are printed on a silver
sticker on the units.

The date code is marked on a silver mylar label located on the
outside of the device housing near the top of the product.  The
date code is comprised of 6 alpha characters.  Each character
represents a number between 1 and 0.  The code key is the word
CHARLESTON, where C=1, H=2, A=3 . . . etc, up to N=0.

Using this key, once the letters are converted to numerals, the
date of manufacture is determined.  The first two digits are the
month, the next two digits are the day, and the last two are the
year.  Thus, for example, a date code of NLCHCC=05/12/11.  Devices
with date codes between 02/16/09 and 09/05/13 are affected.

Electrical arcing can cause the units to catch fire, posing a fire
hazard.  Trident Ultraviolet Corporation received 14 reports in
Canada and additional reports in the United States of the
sanitation systems melting and or catching fire, one burn injury
to a consumer's hand and about $24,800 in property damage
reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 1606 of the implicated units were sold in Canada and
another 3660 in the United States.

These devices were manufactured in United States and China between
the periods of Feb. 16, 2009 to Sept. 5, 2013 and are date stamped
as per the above code key.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Trident Ultraviolet Corporation
                    Marina del Rey
                    California
                    United States

(This company is out of business, but is handling this repair)
Distributor Pools companies nationwide from Feb. 2009 through
Sept. 5, 2013 for about $600

Consumers should immediately unplug the units from the outlet, or
if hard wired, the power source should be disconnected or turned
off at the circuit breaker.  Contact Trident for a free repair kit
and to facilitate obtaining a trained pool technician, to the
extent one is not available to you.


TSE GROUP: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Vasilyev v. TSE Group LLC, d/b/a B.B. King Blues Club &
Grill, Bensusan Restaurant Corp., Tsion Bensusan, and Danny
Bensusan, Case No. 1:14-cv-05570 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2014) is
brought to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief,
pursuant to the FLSA.

TSE Group LLC, doing business as B.B. King Blues Club& Grill, is a
New York Corporation with its principal place of business located
at in New York City.  Bensusan Restaurant Corp., is a New York
Corporation with its principal place of business located in New
York City.  The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or
operators of the Corporate Defendants.  The Defendants owned and
operated several restaurants and music venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111
          Facsimile: (718) 791-9171
          E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


UNICER FOODS: Recalls Extra Brand "Queijo De Mistura" Cheese
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Unicer Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9031

The food recall warning issued on June 24, 2014 has been updated
to include an additional product.  This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Unicer Foods Ltd. is recalling "Queijo de Mistura" Cheese, product
of Portugal, from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

Some product packages may not bear a code.  Consumers who are
unsure if they have purchased the affected product are advised to
contact their retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the 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.

Affected products: Extra Queijo de Mistura with a combination of
cow's, sheep's and goat's milk


UNITED STATES: EEOC Affirms 2010 Class Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Passman & Kaplan, P.C., in an article for FEDweek, reports that
after nearly four years, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations
has affirmed the class certification decision received in
September 2010 on a complaint first filed in 2006, challenging the
State Department's "worldwide availability" policy.  Doering
Meyer, et al. v. Department of State, Appeal No. 0720110007
(6/6/14).  Essentially, to be hired as a Foreign Service officer,
applicants have been required to be able to serve at every post in
the State Department, worldwide (hundreds of posts), without any
kind of need for ongoing medical care (or perceived need for
ongoing medical care) or reasonable accommodation.  "The Class
Agent's claim, coupled by the supporting documentation gathered so
far, suggests that the agency requires all applicants be available
for work in 100% of posts, without regard to accommodations or
individualized assessments, and is therefore sufficient evidence
to infer that the agency operates an overriding policy of
discrimination."  Ms. Meyer, the Class Agent, has had multiple
sclerosis (MS) in remission for decades, without need for
treatment, but was rejected outright for State Department
employment anywhere in the world because the office of medical
services perceived that her MS might cause her problems in certain
places with high humidity.  This was not based on any report from
her doctors or any examination of her personally, but based upon
MS as "a disease entity."  After she missed several posting
opportunities over the course of an extended period, losing
substantial income and seniority, she was able to help her get a
waiver of the "worldwide availability" requirement, and to get
hired, based upon her "extraordinary qualifications" (a law degree
and speaking fluent Arabic and Turkish, for example).  She is now
a tenured Foreign Service officer after years of successful
service.

The State Department argued that its waiver policy, which
Ms. Meyer was ultimately able to use, defeated the commonality of
the class.  The Commission disagreed, noting that "While a waiver
may be available if Worldwide Availability is denied, the record
reveals many do not take advantage of it, and in fact, are advised
that waivers are rarely granted and only then when in the "best
interest of the service."  The EEOC concluded the optional waiver
process does not defeat commonality as the class definition
accounts for the delay in hiring if a waiver is requested and
granted.  The class was certified on behalf of "all qualified
applicants to the Foreign Service beginning on October 7, 2006,
who were denied employment, or whose employment was delayed
pending application for an receipt of a waiver, because the State
Department deemed them not 'world-wide available' due to their
disability."

Joseph V. Kaplan, a founding partner of Passman & Kaplan, P.C., is
co-counsel on the case.


UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Nurses File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that the University of
Pennsylvania Health System and the UPenn Board of Trustees were
hit with a suit in Pennsylvania court by a putative class of
registered nurses employed by the hospice division of Penn
Medicine who claim that overtime wages were withheld.

Named plaintiff Lesley Sayell, a former RN case manager at Penn
Wissahickon Hospice -- also a defendant -- claims in the July 8
complaint that despite working more than 40 hours per week
throughout her employment, she failed to receive overtime payment
in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Wage
Payment Collection Act.

"Defendant Penn Wissahickon Hospice's unlawful practices, in
violation of the PMWA and the WPCL, include its failure to pay the
plaintiff class overtime of not less than one and one half times
the employees/plaintiff class's regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek," the complaint states.

According to the complaint, Ms. Sayell began working as an RN case
manager at Penn Wissahickon Hospice in September 2011.  In her
position, she provided medical and other services to clients on a
daily basis, which required her to travel to and from residencies,
the suit says.

Throughout much of her employment, and as directed by Penn
Wissahickon Hospice, she worked more than 40 hours per week, which
is documented by time cards and other records that she submitted,
as well as pay statements she received, according to the suit.

Despite working more than 40 hours per week, she did not receive
overtime premium wages at the rate of one and one half times her
regular rate of pay, as required by law, the complaint says.  The
proposed class includes all current and former RN case managers
employed in Pennsylvania by Penn Wissahickon Hospice beginning
three years prior to the filing of the suit.  Ms. Sayell estimates
that the class size exceeds 82 individual RN case managers
employed by the facility, according to the complaint.

"Without a class action, defendant Penn Wissahickon Hospice will
likely retain the benefit of its wrongdoing and will continue a
course of action which will result in further damages to the
plaintiff class," the complaint says.

Penn Medicine is also named as a defendant in the suit.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas More Holland --
tmh@tmhlaw.com -- of the Law Offices of Thomas More Holland.

The case is Lesley Sayell v. The Trustees of the University of
Pennsylvania et al., case number 140700555, in the Court of Common
Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia.


V THEATER: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that a Florida man filed a class-action lawsuit on July 15 that
accuses V Theater Group and Las Vegas producer David Saxe of
invading his privacy by sending him unsolicited text messages.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Bijan Razilou believes the
class members "number in the thousands, if not more."  He is
represented by Las Vegas attorneys Dennis Kennedy and
Paul Williams.

Mr. Razilou filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas
against V Theater Group LLC, David Saxe Productions and its owner,
Saxe.  According to the complaint, the defendants directed the
mass transmission of text messages to cellphones nationwide in an
attempt to reach potential customers.

Mr. Razilou called a box office operated by the defendants in
December to get seats for the Nathan Burton Comedy Magic show in
the Saxe Theater at Planet Hollywood Resort.  Before providing
requested contact information, according to his lawsuit, he told
the representative he did not wish to get marketing calls or
materials.

"He was assured that such marketing efforts would not be made,"
the lawsuit alleges.

According to the complaint, the defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.


VIETNAMESE AMERICAN: Shrimpers Sue Over Unreleased Subsidy Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
members of a fisherman's union have filed a class action lawsuit
against the organization and it director.

Ke Van Bach et al. filed a class action lawsuit against Vietnamese
American Commercial Fishermen's Union and Calvin Cuong Nguyen in
the 24th Judicial District Court.  Bach claims after the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 was passed in order to
compensate shrimpers and shrimp processors over the dumping
practices of foreign producers the Vietnamese American Commercial
Fishermen's Union agreed to seek subsidy distributions in their
behalf for a 5 percent fee.  The plaintiffs assert that after
entering into the agreement with the defendant they requested
accounting for the services that were supposedly provided on
numerous occasion, but were rebuffed.  In addition, Bach alleges
that Nguyen asked that each of the class members pledge personal
property in order to receive the subsidy distributions when that
was allegedly never part of the agreement.  Subsequently, the
plaintiffs contend that the defendant have refused to release the
monies owed to them.

The Vietnamese American Commercial Fishermen's Union was sued by
another group of members last year over the same issue.  The
defendant is accused of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, failing to properly represent the interests of the
plaintiffs, failing to timely submit appropriate claims forms and
failing to properly administer and handle funds.

The plaintiffs are seeking a full and complete accounting of all
sums requested on their behalf by the defendants and the status of
any and all disbursements.

The class is represented by attorney Connie P. Trieu of Gretna.

The case has been assigned to Division N Judge Stephen D. Enright
Jr.

Case no. 737-996.


WALNUT CAPITAL: Sued in W.D. Pa. Over Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Walnut Capital Management, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00957 (W.D. Pa., July 16, 2014), alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations,
in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties
owned and managed by the Defendant.

Walnut Capital Management owns, operates, controls and leases a
place of public accommodation, with business headquartered at 5500
Walnut Street, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAWONA PACKING: Recalls Sweet 2 Eat Fresh Fruits
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Wawona Packing Company of California
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Industry is recalling Sweet 2 Eat brand fresh, whole peaches,
plums, nectarines and pluots from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination.  These products were
recalled by Wawona Packing Company of California.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled products.

Note that retail cartons may show the following brand names:
Wawona, Sweet 2 Eat or Harvest Sweet.  Stickers on individual
fruit have the Sweet 2 Eat brand name.

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.  Consumers who are unsure whether they have the
affected products are advised to check with their retailer or
supplier.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Makes Fibro-Dust Claim Against Norton Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Nicodemus, writing for Telegram.com, reported that a civil
lawsuit, which seeks to answer the question on whether asbestos-
laden dust, brought home day after day for 35 years on the work
clothes of your loved one, cause you to get cancer, was brought in
March against Norton Co. (now Saint-Gobain) in Middlesex Superior
Court by Joan A. Girard, a 74-year-old widow who lives in
Worcester.

In her lawsuit, Mrs. Girard alleged she "has developed malignant
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease" and has "incurred
medical expenses, suffered a dramatic reduction in her life
expectancy, incurred great medical and physical pain and
suffering, and suffered an impairment in her enjoyment of life,
which damages are continuing in nature."

The lawsuit alleged that Mrs. Girard "was exposed to and did
ingest the asbestos fibers which did escape from the premises of
the defendant, Saint-Gobain Abrasives, f/k/a The Norton Company,
by way of the work clothes and person of her husband, Richard W.
Girard Jr."

The lawsuit asks for compensatory damages, plus interest and cost.

Her husband, Dick Girard, died on Oct. 5, 2012, at the age of 75
due to acute respiratory failure and stomach cancer, according to
a death certificate on file at the Worcester city clerk's office.
According to his obituary, Dick Girard worked for 35 years at
Norton Co., which was later purchased by the French construction
conglomerate Saint-Gobain.

In addition to Saint-Gobain, the lawsuit names Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co.; Cleaver-Brooks Inc.; Riley Power Inc.; Plastics
Engineering Co.; Union Carbide Corp.; A.W. Chesterton Co.; General
Electric; Swindell Dresser Corp.; and Lindberg/MPH.

Mrs. Girard and her attorneys have demanded a jury trial.

This lawsuit came to my attention due to an advertisement placed
in the Telegram & Gazette on Monday, with a young-looking photo of
Dick Girard under the headline, "Attention former employees of
Norton Co., Worcester, MA"

"If you worked at Norton Company from 1959 to the 1970s and
remember working with Richard W. Girard Jr., we need your help. He
worked as a laborer in Plant 8, machine operator at Abrasive 2,
and foreman at Supply 6," the ad stated.

"If you recall the gentleman in the photo, please call Charles
LePauloue at (617) 531-3936 at Thornton & Naumes, LLP, 100 Summer
St., 30th Floor, Boston MA 02110. Thank you."

I called Mr. LePauloue, who is a private investigator for Thornton
& Naumes. He put me in touch with Andrew Wainwright, the lead
attorney on the case.

Mr. Wainwright said it was "not at all uncommon" for workers to
bring asbestos-laden dust home on their clothing, which would
contaminate the house and be breathed in by family members. It is
not mentioned in the lawsuit, but Mrs. Girard's father also worked
at Norton Co., he said.

Norton Company "is a fairly regular defendant in asbestos cases,"
he said, "because of the asbestos material they used in the
grinding wheels they used to make. There were potentially other
products (with asbestos), as well as equipment in facility like
steampipes, boilers and other equipment that had insulation with
asbestos."

But the case lacks witnesses, he said, hence the advertisement.

"We're having a hard time finding a co-worker of Mr. Girard's,"
Mr. Wainwright said. "We'd like to interview someone he worked
with."

Interestingly, all civil asbestos cases in Massachusetts are filed
in Middlesex Superior Court under Judge Charles Hely, who is
considered an expert on asbestos cases.

Asbestos-related lawsuits filed by the affected workers themselves
have become commonplace.

Also common are wives and children of those workers filing
lawsuits after the worker has died from a complication related to
asbestos exposure. While a lawsuit regarding contracting
mesothelioma second-hand through a spouse is a rarer case, it is
not without precedent.

In 2010, a California woman was awarded $208.5 million in her
lawsuit against A.W. Chesterton Co. She alleged that she developed
a form of cancer related to asbestos from washing her husband's
clothes for 25 years, not knowing they contained asbestos fibers,
according to a description of the case on the website of the
Mesothelioma Center, www.asbestos.com.

Her husband worked for the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power and came in contact with asbestos fibers on the job.

According to center's website, more than 10,000 companies have
been sued in asbestos lawsuits. What the center's website does not
say, but was quoted in a 2013 New York Times opinion piece, is
that 100 companies have filed for bankruptcy as a result of
asbestos litigation.

Four months after Mrs. Girard's lawsuit was filed, Saint-Gobain
should have filed a response. And it has. But I cannot report on
its contents for you.

A spokeswoman for Saint-Gobain said the company has filed a
response to Mrs. Girard's lawsuit "in a special docket set up by
the court system in Massachusetts specifically to process this
category of claims in which access is typically limited to
attorneys representing the parties involved in the litigation."
The court is in Woburn, and the person who handles the asbestos
cases for Middlesex County was out of the office Friday.

Saint-Gobain's spokeswoman said the company would not comment on
pending litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Affirms $12M Jury Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the The New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division has ruled
in favor of two plaintiffs in a consolidated asbestos case,
affirming a $12 million jury verdict.

Justice Angela Mazzarelli delivered the July 3 opinion, concluding
that the trial court's allocated liability was proper.

Justices David Friedman and Leland DeGrasse dissented in part,
arguing that the court erred when in held Crane Co. 99 percent
liable in one of the asbestos cases after refusing to allow a key
witness's testimony. Friedman provided the dissenting opinion.

Plaintiff Ruby Konstantin appeared on behalf of decedent Dave John
Konstantin and plaintiff Doris Kay Dummitt appeared on behalf of
decedent Ronald Dummitt.

Konstantin worked as a carpenter at two Manhattan construction
sites from 1973 to 1977 where defendant Tishman Liquidating
Corporation (TLC) was the general contractor.  He worked in close
proximity to drywall contractors who would sand asbestos-
containing joint compound, creating breathable dust.

The pre-mixed joint compound was manufactured by Georgia Pacific,
Kaiser Gypsum and U.S. Gypsum. TLC was responsible for supervising
and controlling the work.

Evidence showed that TLC was aware of asbestos risks as early as
1969. The plaintiffs, however, claimed the defendant failed to
take any steps to protect the workers from asbestos hazards.

The decedent also worked at a gas station from the late 1960s to
the early 1970s, where he performed hundreds of brake jobs,
sanding down brake pads manufactured by the Bendix Corporation.
However, Bendix was not included on the jury's verdict sheet.

Konstantin was later diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2010
and died from his injuries on June 6, 2012.  He and his wife
alleged TLC was liable for negligently supervising and controlling
the drywall work, and was directly liable in common-law negligence
for its employees' power-sweeping work, which created additional
asbestos exposure.

As for Dummitt, he served in the U.S. Navy from 1960 to 1977 on
seven Navy vessels as a boiler technician.

As part of his duties, he worked with asbestos-containing gaskets
and packing material associated with the roughly 600 valves in the
boiler rooms aboard the ships.

A majority of the valves were manufactured by Crane Co. Those
valves contained asbestos packing and gaskets. Dummitt testified
that he was exposed to asbestos when maintaining the valves.  He
explained that he would scrape off old gaskets with a wire-brush
and would blast old packing with compressed air, which created
asbestos dust.

"Indeed, Dummitt stated that it was almost impossible not to be
exposed to asbestos dust when removing the pads," Mazzarelli
wrote.

However, Dummitt conceded that he was never exposed to asbestos
products that were either supplied or sold by Crane, as the
asbestos-containing component parts were manufactured by third
party companies.  He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April
2010.

Dummitt and his wife alleged Crane acted negligently by failing to
warn the decedent of asbestos hazards associated with the
asbestos-containing component parts used in its valves.

The two lawsuits were consolidated with a cluster of 10 cases,
three lung cancer claims and seven mesothelioma claims, for trial
in the Supreme Court for New York County.

Prior to trial, five of the mesothelioma cases settled, leaving
only Konstantin and Dummitt.

After a six-week trial, TLC was found 76 percent liable for
Konstantin's injuries, and each of the three joint compound
manufacturers were found eight percent liable.

The jury awarded Konstantin damages of $19 million for pain and
suffering, and more than $500,000 for lost earnings.

Crane was found 99 percent liable for Dummitt's injuries, while
defendant Elliott was held one percent liable for its negligence
in failing to warn the decedent about asbestos dangers.

The jury awarded Dummitt a total of $32 million, including $16
million for pain and suffering.

The jury concluded that both TLC and Crane were reckless.

Both defendants moved to set aside the verdicts.

TLC argued that the trials should not have been consolidated, that
the jury's allocation of liability was improper, that the evidence
failed to support that the defendant was reckless and that damage
awards were unreasonable compensation.

The court granted TLC's request to set aside the damages verdict
and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages unless Konstantin
agreed to reduce the awards to $8 million for pain and suffering.
Konstantin accepted in November 2012.

Crane argued that it should not be held liable for placement of
products it did not manufacture into the stream of commerce. It
added that because the asbestos-containing components were
manufactured by third party companies, it could not be held liable
for failure to warn of asbestos dangers. It also asserted that the
allocation of fault was improper.

The court granted Crane's request to reduce damages to $8 million
for pain and suffering, which was officially entered for Dummitt
in October 2012.

"In doing so, the court rejected Crane's theory that it could not
be liable because it did not place the asbestos-containing
components into the stream of commerce," Mazzarelli wrote. "The
court found that Crane was liable because it knew or should have
known that the components, which were meant to be used in
conjunction with its product, contained asbestos and were
therefore likely hazardous."

A judgment of $4.4 million was ultimately entered in favor of
Dummitt after accounting for setoffs to which Crane was entitled.

The defendants appealed.

TLC's arguments on appeal:

On appeal, TLC argued that the two actions should not have been
consolidated in the first place because they involve different
factual and legal issues. It explains that the differences between
the two work environments are too "vast."

The court disagreed. It recognized that a ship's boiler room is a
different environment than a construction site, but stated that
the asbestos exposure in both situations was similar. Both
decedents were in the immediate presence of breathable asbestos
dust released into the air while they were performing their
duties.

Crane disagreed with the consolidation order in the trial court
but did not raise the issue on appeal.

TLC argued the two cases involved different legal theories with
Dummitt alleging a liability/failure to warn claim and Konstantin
alleging negligence and violation of Labor Law claim.

"TLC contends that trying these two cases together required the
jury to grapple with different elements of liability and to sort
through voluminous evidence, must of which was relevant only to
one case or the other," Mazzarelli stated.

The court held that while Konstantin was required to establish
TLC's control of the worksite and Dummitt was required to
demonstrate that Crane breached a duty to warn, "both theories
ultimately required a showing that defendants failed to act
reasonably in permitting the men to become exposed to asbestos."

Friedman and DeGrasse argued that the court should not have
addressed the consolidation appeal in the first place, holding
that TLC failed to provide the court with any of the papers upon
which the consolidation order was made.

"In fact, the record before us on the consolidation order is not
merely 'incomplete;' there is no record before us at all upon
which to conduct a review of that order," Friedman wrote.

They argued that the majority failed to cite any authority
"permitting consideration of an appeal in the absence of any part
of the record upon which the appealed order was made."

The two argued that the court should have addressed the
defendants' remaining issues without deciding the challenge to the
consolidation order.

"I do not understand why the majority insists on addressing the
consolidation issue on the merits, in the absence of any record,
when we are all agreed that the Konstantin judgment should be
affirmed," he added.

Turning to the challenges to the verdicts, Mazzarelli noted that
TLC argued that the jury's allocated liability was improper
because there was no evidence showing it manufactured, bought,
sold, distributed or used the joint compounds Konstantin was
exposed to.

However, the court held that the verdict accurately apportioned
liability because TLC failed to provide evidence demonstrating
responsibility for the manufacturers, while Konstantin provided
sufficient evidence revealing direct liability against TLC for
violating its duty to supervise and control the asbestos work.

Because the decedent did not work directly with the product, he
would not have seen any warning signs, "putting TLC in the best
and only position to protect him," Mazzarelli wrote.

Crane's arguments on appeal:

On the other hand, Crane also argued that the jury's allocated
liability was improper, claiming there was no evidence showing
Crane manufactured or supplied the numerous asbestos-containing
materials Dummitt was exposed to during his service in the Navy.

The court held that exposure to Crane's valves was the primary
source of Dummitt's asbestos exposure due to its efforts to market
asbestos as the preferred insulation of choice for its valves.

Still, Crane alleged it had no legal duty regarding asbestos-
containing component parts manufactured and sold by third-party
companies.

The court disagreed, reiterating that Crane helped write the Naval
Machinery manual and provided detailed drawings specifying which
components should be used with each valve, thus influencing the
Navy's decision to use asbestos.

"To the contrary," Mazzarelli wrote, "the evidence demonstrates
that Crane influenced the Navy's choice of valve components
following the initial shipment, and played a leading role in
creating the culture and regulations that encouraged and
eventually mandated the use of asbestos for insulation."

Furthermore, the court affirmed the trial court's refusal to
permit testimony from Admiral David Sargent regarding the Navy's
specifications on asbestos warnings. The court said it is
unconvinced that his testimony would have made a difference.

Friedman and DeGrasse disagreed, asserting that the trial court
erred when it excluded evidence offered by the defendant regarding
causation.

"Even if one joins the majority in its dubious assumption that the
Navy was in the dark about the dangers of asbestos during the
relevant period, what the majority overlooks is that Admiral
Sargent would have testified, based on his long experience in
naval procurement practice, that, even if Crane had sought to
provide such warnings, the Navy would have disallowed them,"
Friedman wrote.

Additionally, they claimed the trial court erred when it
instructed the jury that Crane's duty to warn extended to asbestos
dangers from using its product even though it may not have
manufactured or sold the component parts.

Because the defendant provided evidence that the Navy, not Crane,
dictated that asbestos-containing component parts were to be used
with the valves, Crane should not be held liable, they said.

Crane also alleged a new trial is necessary because the word
"foreseeability" in the jury's verdict sheet was prejudicial. The
court disagreed.

Because Crane demonstrated interest in the use of asbestos
components with its valves, "the charge as given had no potential
to communicate the wrong standard to the jury."

Furthermore, the court concluded that Crane provided no evidence
showing it attempted to warn the Navy that its products contained
asbestos exposure risks.

Friedman and DeGrasse disagreed, explaining that the issue is
contrary to this court's precedent in failure-to-warn cases,
holding that the plaintiff has the burden of proving "'that the
user of a product would have read and headed a warning had one
been given.'"

The majority attempted to "cure" this error by arguing that the
presumption could be rebutted, but the dissenting justices
remained unconvinced.

"Whether rebuttable or not, the presumption charge had the effect
of shifting the burden of proof on the causation issue and was
contrary to precedent of this court by which the trial court was
bound," Friedman wrote.

They added that by precluding Sargent, the trial court compounded
this error.

"I do not take issue with the majority's statement that the
Dummitt plaintiff presented evidence that he would have received
any warning and clearly testified that he would have headed those
warnings and taken steps to protect himself," Friedman stated.
"Still, Crane was entitled to present its own proof rebutting this
evidence."

Friedman and DeGrasse suggested ordering a new trial on the issues
of whether Crane's failure to provide warnings on the dangers of
asbestos-containing component parts was a proximate cause of the
decedent's injury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $16.9MM Vermiculite Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its
former vermiculite operations in Libby was $16.9 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.

Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, in 1963 and
operated it until 1990. Vermiculite concentrate from the Libby
mine was used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other
products. Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby
mine contained naturally occurring asbestos. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has investigated sites, including
some owned by Grace, which used, stored or processed vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine.  The EPA, Grace and/or other
potentially responsible parties have conducted investigations
and/or remedial actions at those sites identified by EPA as
requiring remedial action.

During 2010, EPA began reinvestigating certain facilities on a
list of 105 facilities where vermiculite concentrate from the
Libby mine may have been processed. Grace is cooperating with EPA
on this reinvestigation. EPA has requested that Grace perform
remediation at eight of these facilities. In 2011, Grace performed
preliminary evaluations to estimate the cost of remediating these
sites based on the revised criteria and recorded an aggregate
charge of $16.0 million. It is probable that EPA will request
additional remediation at other facilities. Grace does not have
sufficient information to identify either the sites that might
require additional remediation or the cost of any additional
remediation. Grace will continue to monitor EPA's reinvestigation
of the remaining sites and assess any information received from
EPA. A liability will be recorded in the future should Grace
determine that an obligation is probable and reasonably estimable.

Grace's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation studies
and other estimable matters related to its former vermiculite
operations in Libby, as well as the cost of remediation at
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, at March 31, 2014,
and December 31, 2013, was $16.9 million and $60.4 million,
respectively, excluding interest where applicable. It is probable
that Grace's ultimate liability will exceed current estimates by
material amounts. Grace's current recorded liability will be
adjusted as Grace receives new information and amounts become
reasonably estimable.

W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace Materials
Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings and
sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cons Edison Has $8MM Accrued Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., disclosed that its accrued liability
for asbestos suits was $8 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.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in
all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2013,
Con Edison and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
estimated that their aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities
for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the
next 15 years were $8 million and $7 million, respectively. The
estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical
data analysis and risk factor assessment. Actual experience may be
materially different. In addition, certain current and former
employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation
benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos.
Under its current rate plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as
regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims. The accrued liability for asbestos suits at March 31,
2014, for Con Edison was $8 million and for CECONY was $7 million.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012,
Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con
Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Has 1,366 New Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., received approximately 1,366 new 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.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however,
is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number
of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

MLIC received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013.
During the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, MLIC
received approximately 1,366 and 1,435 new asbestos-related
claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may
incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year
are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
March 31, 2014.

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50
countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife
operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific,
Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six segments:
Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding
and Auto & Home (collectively, U.S. Business), and Japan and Other
International Regions (collectively, International). U.S. Business
provides insurance and financial services products, including
life, dental, disability, auto and homeowner insurance. In
September 2013, MetLife Inc and Thayer Lodging Group acquired the
365-room Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf Resort in Cabo San Lucas,
Mexico in a joint venture. In October 2013, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria SA sold its entire 64.3% interest in Administradora de
Fondos de Pensiones Provida SA (AFP Provida) to Metlife Inc's
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Units' Ch. 11 Cases Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chapter 11 cases of certain subsidiaries of Enpro Industries,
Inc., 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.

On June 5, 2010, GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The filings were the
initial step in a claims resolution process, which is ongoing. The
goal of the process is an efficient and permanent resolution of
all current and future asbestos claims through court approval of a
plan of reorganization, which typically would establish a trust to
which all asbestos claims would be channeled for resolution. GST
seeks an agreement with asbestos claimants and other creditors on
the terms of a plan for the establishment of such a trust and
repayment of other creditors in full, or in the absence of such an
agreement, an order of the Bankruptcy Court confirming such a
plan.

In November 2011, GST filed a proposed plan of reorganization with
the Bankruptcy Court. GST's initial proposed plan called for a
trust to be formed, to which GST and affiliates would contribute
$200 million and which would be the exclusive remedy for future
asbestos personal injury claimants -- those whose claims arise
after confirmation of the plan. The initial proposed plan provided
that each present asbestos personal injury claim, i.e., any
pending claim or one that arises between the Petition Date and
plan confirmation, would be assumed by reorganized GST and
resolved either by settlement (pursuant to a matrix contained in
the proposed plan or as otherwise agreed), or by payment in full
of any final judgment entered after trial in federal court. Based
on a preliminary estimate provided by Bates White, GST estimates
that the indemnity costs to resolve all present claims pursuant to
the settlement matrix in the plan would cost reorganized GST
approximately $70 million. Under the initial proposed plan, all
non-asbestos claimants would be paid the full value of their
claims.

On April 13, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court granted a motion by GST
for the Bankruptcy Court to estimate the allowed amount of present
and future asbestos claims against GST for mesothelioma, a rare
cancer attributed to asbestos exposure. The estimation trial
commenced on July 22, 2013, and concluded on August 22, 2013.

On January 10, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges announced his
estimation decision in a 65-page order. Citing with approval the
methodology put forth by GST at trial, the judge determined that
$125 million is the amount sufficient to satisfy GST's liability
for present and future mesothelioma claims. Judge Hodges adopted
GST's "legal liability" approach to estimation, focused on the
merits of claims, and rejected asbestos claimant representatives'
approach, which focused solely on GST's historical settlement
history. The judge's liability determination is for mesothelioma
claims only. The court has not yet determined amounts for GST's
liability for other asbestos claims and for administrative costs
that would be required to review and process claims and payments,
which will add to the amount.

In his opinion, Judge Hodges wrote, "The best evidence of
Garlock's aggregate responsibility is the projection of its legal
liability that takes into consideration causation, limited
exposure and the contribution of exposures to other products."

The decision validates the positions that GST has been asserting
for the more than three years it has been in this process.
Following are several important findings in the opinion:

* Garlock's products resulted in a relatively low exposure to
asbestos to a limited population, and its legal responsibility for
causing mesothelioma is relatively de minimis.

* Chrysotile, the asbestos fiber type used in almost all of
Garlock's asbestos products, is far less toxic than other forms of
asbestos. The court found reliable and persuasive Garlock's expert
epidemiologist, who testified that there is no statistically
significant association between low dose chrysotile exposure and
mesothelioma.

* The population that was exposed to Garlock's products was
necessarily exposed to far greater quantities of higher potency
asbestos from the products of others.

* The estimates of Garlock's aggregate liability that are based on
its historic settlement values are not reliable because those
values are infected with the impropriety of some law firms and
inflated by the cost of defense.

GST plans to incorporate the court's ruling into a revised plan of
reorganization that it will submit in place of the plan. GST has
not yet determined the amount that it will propose be included in
its revised plan, as it continues to hope that it can reach a
consensual resolution with representatives of current and future
claimants. GST has stated that it continues to be willing to
engage in discussions with claimant representatives, recognizing
that an agreed settlement would provide the best path to certainty
and finality through section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code,
provide for faster and more efficient completion of the case, save
significant future costs, and allow for the attainment of complete
finality.

There are many potential hurdles, including appeals, that may
arise prior to plan confirmation.

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Unit Awaits Ruling in Ch. 11 Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Enpro Industries, Inc., is awaiting ruling on
appeals pending in its Chapter 11 case, 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.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, has a record of success in
trials of asbestos cases, especially before the bankruptcies of
many of the historically significant asbestos defendants that
manufactured raw asbestos, asbestos insulation, refractory
products or other dangerous friable asbestos products. However, it
has on occasion lost jury verdicts at trial. GST has consistently
appealed when it has received an adverse verdict and has had
success in a majority of those appeals. We believe that GST LLC
will continue to be successful in the appellate process, although
there can be no assurance of success in any particular appeal. At
March 31, 2014, three GST LLC appeals are pending from adverse
decisions totaling $2.4 million.

GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of two recent
appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500 thousand verdict
against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a Kentucky federal
court jury. The federal appellate court found that GST LLC's
motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted
because the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination
of liability. The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote that, "On the
basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was
a substantial cause of [claimant's] mesothelioma would be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume." In May 2011, a
three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST
LLC's $700 thousand share of a jury verdict, which included
punitive damages, in a lung cancer case against GST LLC in
Kentucky state court. This verdict, which was secured by a bond
pending the appeal, was paid in June 2012.

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $121.1MM Insurance Coverage for Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------

Enpro Industries, Inc., has $121.1 million of insurance coverage
to cover one of its subsidiaries' current and future asbestos
claims payments and certain expense payments, 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: "At March 31, 2014 we had $121.1 million of
insurance coverage we believe is available to cover current and
future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments.
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, has collected insurance
payments totaling $74.0 million since the Petition Date. Of the
$121.1 million of available insurance coverage remaining, we
consider $120.0 million (99%) to be of high quality because the
insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based
carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or
better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. We
consider $1.1 million (1%) to be of moderate quality because the
insurance policies are written with various London market
carriers. Of the $121.1 million, $85.1 million is allocated to
claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the
Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $86.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
substantially all of the $121.1 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
The $121.1 million is in addition to the $20.8 million collected
in 2013. Based on those agreements and policies, some of which
define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of which
limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we
anticipate that $39.1 million will become collectible at the
conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected regardless of when the case
concludes:

   * 2014 -- $20 million
   * 2015 -- $20 million
   * 2016 -- $18 million
   * 2017 -- $13 million
   * 2018 -- $11 million

GST LLC has received $7.2 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007 and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the $121.1 million of
anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover Coltec and certain of its other subsidiaries
in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore
could be subject to potential competing claims of other covered
subsidiaries and their assignees."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Accrued $466.8-Mil. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., accrued $466.8 million asbestos liability,
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: "Our recorded asbestos liability as of June 5,
2010 was $472.1 million. We based that recorded liability on an
estimate of probable and estimable expenditures to resolve
asbestos personal injury claims under generally accepted
accounting principles, made with the assistance of Garrison and an
estimation expert, Bates White, retained by GST LLC's counsel. The
estimate developed was an estimate of the most likely point in a
broad range of potential amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve
asbestos claims (by settlement in the majority of the cases except
those dismissed or tried) over the ten-year period following the
date of the estimate in the state court system, plus accrued but
unpaid legal fees. The estimate, which was not discounted to
present value, did not reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal
liability; GST LLC has continuously maintained that its products
could not have been a substantial contributing cause of any
asbestos disease. Instead, the liability estimate reflected GST
LLC's recognition that most claims would be resolved more
efficiently and at a significantly lower total cost through
settlements without any actual liability determination.

Neither we nor GST has endeavored to update the accrual since the
Petition Date except as necessary to reflect payments of accrued
fees and the disposition of cases on appeal. After those necessary
updates, the liability accrual at March 31, 2014 was $466.8
million. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has been
resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability has been
determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization agreed
to by the debtor and its creditors, including asbestos claimants
and a representative of potential future claimants. GST does not
believe that there is a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a consensual resolution can be made and therefore believes
that, prior to the resolution of liability in GST's Chapter 11
proceeding, there is no basis upon which it can revise the
estimate last updated prior to the Petition Date. In addition, we
do not believe that we can make a reasonable estimate of a
specific range of more likely outcomes with respect to the
asbestos liability of GST, and therefore, while we believe it to
be an unlikely worst case scenario, GST's ultimate costs to
resolve all asbestos claims against it could range up to the total
value of GST.

In a proposed plan of reorganization filed by GST and opposed by
claimant representatives, GST proposed to resolve all pending and
future claims. GST estimated that the amounts to be paid into the
trust created by the plan for payments to future claimants, plus
the indemnity costs incurred under the plan to pay present
claimants, would be approximately $270 million. Claimant
representatives, on the other hand, have asserted that GST's
liability exceeds the value of GST.

The proposed plan of reorganization includes provisions that would
resolve any and all alleged derivative claims against us based on
GST asbestos products. The provisions specify that we would fund
$30 million of the amount proposed to be paid into the trust to
pay future claimants and would guarantee the obligations of GST
under the plan. Those provisions are incorporated into the terms
of the proposed plan only in the context of the specifics of that
plan, which would result in the equity interests of GST being
retained by GST's equity holder, the reconsolidation of GST into
the Company with substantial equity above the amount of equity
currently included in our consolidated financial statements, and
an injunction protecting us from future GST claims.

GST intends to incorporate the judge's recent decision estimating
GST's liability for mesothelioma into a revised plan of
reorganization that it will submit in place of its initial
proposed plan. GST has not yet determined the amount that it will
propose be included in the revised plan. We cannot predict when a
plan of reorganization for GST might be approved and effective nor
can we predict the amount of funding that a confirmed plan will
require. An estimation trial for the purpose of determining the
number and value of allowed mesothelioma claims for plan
feasibility purposes commenced on July 22, 2013, and concluded on
August 22, 2013. On January 10, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered
an order estimating GST's liability for present and future
mesothelioma claims at $125 million, consistent with the positions
that GST put forth at trial. The Court's estimate is for
mesothelioma claims only. Additional amounts may be necessary to
resolve other disease claims and trust administration costs. The
estimation decision did not end the case; there are many potential
hurdles, including appeals, that may arise prior to plan
confirmation."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HWC Continues to Defend Fibro Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company ("HWC") has been named in a number of
lawsuits alleging that certain wire and cable which may have
contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable, 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, along with many other defendants, has been named in a
number of lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and
cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the
plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits
are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts
of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the
alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in
question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and
cable alleged to have caused any injuries, The Company maintains
general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense
of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, the
Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue,
and the Company would rely on any warranties from the
manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the
wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos
which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with
ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities
with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims
that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance
coverage proves inadequate.

Houston Wire & Cable Company provides wire and cable and related
services to the United States market. The Company offers its
customers with a single-source solution for wire and cable,
hardware and related services. The Company offers products in
categories of wire and cable, including continuous and interlocked
armor cable, control and power cable, electronic wire and cable,
flexible and portable cords, instrumentation and thermocouple
cable, lead and high temperature cable, medium voltage cable,
premise and category wire and cable, wire rope and wire rope
slings, as well as nylon slings, chain, shackles and other related
hardware. It also offers private branded products, including its
brand LifeGuard, a low-smoke, zero-halogen cable. On January 1,
2011, the acquired companies were merged into HWC Wire & Cable
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,750 Pending PI Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 11,750 asbestos-related cases pending
against Mallinckrodt public limited company, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014.

Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named
as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases
involve product liability claims based principally on allegations
of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited
number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that
individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's
property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants
in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's
involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not
mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's
experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company
has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding
related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these
lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however,
amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been
immaterial. As of March 28, 2014, there were approximately 11,750
asbestos-related cases pending against the Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information
currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known and
anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts
already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

Mallinckrodt public limited company (Mallinckrodt) is a global
specialty pharmaceuticals company. The Company develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and generic
specialty pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)
and diagnostic imaging agents. The Company uses its API products
in the manufacture of its generic pharmaceuticals and also sells
them to other pharmaceutical companies. The Company operates
through two segments: Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Global Medical
Imaging. On June 28, 2013, Covidien plc completed the separation
of its Pharmaceuticals business and transferred the
Pharmaceuticals business to Mallinckrodt. In March 2014, the
Company acquired Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 50,899 Fibro Claims as of March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., had 50,899 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.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos. For the three months ended March
31, 2014, the Company had 50,899 asbestos-related claims.

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

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

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

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. Has $680MM Fibro Liability at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s asbestos liability was $680 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.

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

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

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

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. Had $166-Mil. Fibro Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded $166 million asset allocated representing the
probable insurance reimbursement for asbestos claims expected
through 2021, 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.

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

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $166 million as of March 31, 2014.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout
agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments
that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,
although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time.

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: CECO Environmental Has 180 Pending Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. had a total of 180 pending 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.

The Company states: "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002,
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through March 31, 2014
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7 million,
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately
$25,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 180 cases pending
against the Company as of March 31, 2014 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 173 cases that were pending as of
December 31, 2013. During the three months ended March 31, 2014,
14 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from seven cases and settled zero cases. Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to,
or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases
will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remove Monticello Mayor Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners, residents of the Village of Monticello in Sullivan
County, commenced a proceeding seeking to remove respondent from
the offices of Mayor and Village Manager, alleging that respondent
engaged in numerous acts of misconduct and generally abused the
authority vested in him by the offices at issue.  According to
petitioners, "[t]he debris from the demolition was laden with
asbestos, and was illegally dumped near drinking wells in
violation of numerous environmental laws," thereby exposing the
Village to fines and legal fees estimated to exceed $200,000.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, denied the motion to dismiss the case, and appointed
Hon. Eugene E. Peckham as Referee to take testimony regarding the
allegations contained in the petition.

The case is In the Matter of MICHAEL GRECO et al., Petitioners, v.
GORDON C. JENKINS, as Mayor and Village Manager of the Village of
Monticello, Respondent, 518276 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision dated June 26, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/HBvmWifrom Leagle.com.

Representing the petitioners is:

         Kirk O. Orseck, Esq.
         ORSECK LAW OFFICES
         1924 State Route 52
         Liberty, NY 12754
         Phone: 845-292-5800

Representing the respondent is:

         Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
         SUSSMAN & WATKINS
         1 Railroad Avenue, 3rd Floor
         PO Box 1005
         Goshen, NY 10924
         Tel: 845-294-3991
         Fax: 845-294-1623


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Morvant" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana issued an order and reasons dated
June 18, 2014, denying in part a motion to dismiss, pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARY MORVANT,
v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL., SECTION I, CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-226 (E.D. La.).  In the June 18 Decision, Judge Africk deferred
ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(7).  A full-text copy of Judge Africk's June 18
Decision is available at http://is.gd/jQEhHrfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Africk, on July 3, ruled on the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(7)
and agreed with the Plaintiff that Louisiana's direct action
statute, as applied to the facts of the case, "grants substantive
rights that are dispositive here of the procedural question under
Rule 12(b)(7)."  Accordingly, Judge Africk denied the Defendants'
motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7).  A full-text copy of Judge
Africk's July 3 Decision is available at http://is.gd/m12Bvnfrom
Leagle.com.

Mary Morvant, Plaintiff, represented by Harold J. Flanagan, Esq.,
Anders F. Holmgren, Esq., Charles-Theodore N. Zerner, Esq., and
Sean Patrick Brady, Esq., at Flanagan Partners, LLP; and Amanda
Jones Ballay, Esq., Frank J. Swarr, Esq., Mickey P. Landry, Esq.,
and Philip C Hoffman, Landry, Esq., at Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by David P.
Salley, Esq., and Erika Lynn Mullenbach, Esq., at Salley, Hite,
Mercer & Resor LLC.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Porter Hall, Esq., and Jonathan B. Womack, Esq., at Phelps Dunbar,
LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by
Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Esq., and Katherine Osborne Hannan,
Esq., at Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Paula
Marcello Wellons, Esq., and Desiree Weilbaecher Adams, Esq., at
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Century Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by James M.
Garner, Esq., Martha Y. Curtis, Esq., and Paul R. Trapani, III,
Esq., at Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Won't Issue Advisory Opinion
------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company, and Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory
judgment that its duty to indemnify Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff Troy Belting & Supply Company for asbestos claims is
triggered by injury-in-fact and limited to Hartford's pro rata
time-on-the-risk share.

In a decision and order dated June 20, 2014, Judge Thomas J.
McAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York denied Hartford's motion after determining
that what Hartford seeks is an advisory opinion from the Court
that the Court is not permitted to provide.  Those advisory
opinions are within the province of the federal courts, and the
Court must decline to offer one, Judge McAvoy ruled.

The case is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
TROY BELTING & SUPPLY COMPANY, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY
COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, and ABC COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 20,
Defendants, NO. 1:11-CV-912 (N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge
McAvoy's Decision is available at http://is.gd/8VyOomfrom
Leagle.com.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Plaintiff and Counter
Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Esq., and Scott E. Levens,
at Siegal, Park Law Firm; and David M. Cost, Esq. --
dcost@hblaw.com -- and Linda J. Clark, Esq. -- lclark@hblaw.com --
at Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm - Albany Office

Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq. -- lkalik@riker.com
-- and Tracey K. Wishert, Esq. -- twishert@riker.com -- at Riker
Danzig, Scherer Hyland Perretti LLP.

Continental Casualty Company, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Kristin V. Gallagher, Esq. --
kgallagher@cmk.com -- and Joanna L. Young, Esq. -- Jyoung@cmk.com
-- at Carroll, McNulty & Kull.

Harleysville Group, Inc., Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq., and Tracey K.
Wishert, Esq., at Riker, Danzig Law Firm - NJ Office.

Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq., and Tracey K. Wishert, Esq.,
at Riker, Danzig Law Firm - NJ Office.

Harleysville Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Lance J. Kalik, Esq., and Tracey K. Wishert, Esq., at Riker,
Danzig Law Firm - NJ Office.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Esq. -- eparks@goodwin.com -- James P.
Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Mark K. Ostrowski, Esq.
-- mostrowski@goodwin.com -- and Michele L. Backus, Esq. --
mbackus@goodwin.com -- at Shipman & Goodwin LLP; and James P.
Youngs, Esq. -- jyoungs@hancocklaw.com -- at Hancock Estabrook
LLP.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B.
Parks, II, Esq., James P. Ruggeri, Esq., Mark K. Ostrowski,
Shipman, Esq., and Michele L. Backus, Esq., at Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm - DC Office; and James P. Youngs, Esq., at Hancock,
Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Esq., James P. Ruggeri, Esq., Mark K.
Ostrowski, Esq., and Michele L. Backus, Esq., at Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm - DC Office; and James P. Youngs, Esq., at Hancock,
Estabrook Law Firm.

Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Lloyd A. Gura, Esq. --
lgura@moundcotton.com -- and Mark J. Weber, Esq. --
mweber@moundcotton.com -- at Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.

QBE Americas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara
L. Schifeling, Esq. -- bschifeling@damonmorey.com -- and Hedwig M.
Auletta, Esq. -- hauletta@damonmorey.com -- at Damon Morey LLP.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant and
Third Party Defendant, represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Esq. --
barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -- and Daren S. McNally, Esq. --
daren.mcnally@clydeco.us -- at Clyde & Co. US LLP.

The Hartford Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by James P. Youngs, Esq., at Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

The North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by:

         Dianne C. Bresee, Esq.
         O'CONNOR, O'CONNOR, BRESEE & FIRST, P.C.
         20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
         Albany, NY 12211
         Tel: 518-465-0400
         Fax: 877-886-4029

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Claimant, and Third Party Plaintiff, represented
by:

         Timothy S. Brennan, Esq.
         PHELAN, PHELAN & DANEK, LLP
         302 Washington Ave. Ext., Suite 3
         Albany, NY 12203
         Phone: (518) 640-6900
         Fax: (518) 640-6955

Unigard Insurance Company, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Esq., and Hedwig
M. Auletta, Esq., at Damon, Morey Law Firm - Buffalo Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM's Request for Writ of Mandamus Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County,
issued a decision on June 26, 2014, denying a request for a writ
of mandamus in the case captioned State of Ohio ex rel. General
Motors Company, Relator, v. Dionicia Webster and Industrial
Commission of Ohio, Respondents, NO. 13AP-931 (Ohio App.).
Relator, General Motors Company, filed the action in mandamus,
seeking a writ to compel the Industrial Commission of Ohio to
recalculate the average weekly wage of Bill Webster, who died from
complications associated with mesothelioma.  Mr. Webster got
mesothelioma as a result inhaling asbestos particles while he
worked for GM.  The Ohio Court of Appeals denied the request
adopting a magistrate judge's decision, which denied GM's request,
after determining that the commission properly calculated Mr.
Webster's average weekly wage.  A full-text copy of the Ohio Court
of Appeals' Decision is available at http://is.gd/Gl1yKkfrom
Leagle.com.

Mark S. Barnes, Esq. -- mbarnes@bugbeelawyers.com -- at Bugbee &
Conkle, LLP, for relator.  Mary Brigid Sweeney, Esq., at Mary
Brigid Sweeney Co. LLC, for respondent Dionicia Webster.  Michael
DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, for respondent
Industrial Commission of Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRC's Bid to Force NICO to Arbitrate Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Insurance Company and Transatlantic Reinsurance
Company originally entered into a blanket casualty excess of loss
reinsurance agreement, providing that TRC would indemnify
Continental with respect to net excess liability accrued by
Continental in a variety of classes of general and specialty
casualty insurance business.  The Reinsurance Agreement contains a
provision providing that if any dispute will arise between
Continental and TRC with reference to the interpretation of their
agreement or their rights with respect to any transaction
involved, the dispute will be submitted to arbitration.

In 2010, Continental entered into two separate transactions with
National Indemnity Company.  The first was a "Loss Portfolio
Transfer" transaction whereby Continental purchased reinsurance
from NICO for asbestos and environmental risks.  In 2012, TRC
stopped making payments to Continental under the Reinsurance
Agreement for certain classes of business including asbestos- and
environmental-related claims.  In March 2013, Continental
commenced arbitration against TRC, seeking payment of all balances
due of approximately $136,000 and any amounts accrued through the
date of the hearing.  In February 2014, TRC demanded that NICO
join the Continental-TRC Arbitration as a Petitioner, and in
March, TRC filed a lawsuit seeking to compel NICO to arbitrate as
a party in the Continental-TRC Arbitration.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied TRC's
motion to compel NICO to be added as a party to the arbitration,
holding that, because NICO's benefit is only indirectly related to
the reinsurance agreement, NICO is not estopped from refusing to
arbitrate.

The case is TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
INDEMNITY CO., Defendant, NO. 14 C 1535 (N.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Gettleman's memorandum opinion and order dated June
24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/dwxl5Wfrom Leagle.com.

Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Scott
Andrew Hanfling, Esq. -- shanfling@kfplegal.com -- and Mark A.
Kreger, Esq. -- mkreger@kfplegal.com -- at Kerns, Frost &
Pearlman, LLC.

National Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Eric Arnold
Haab, Esq. -- ehaab@foley.com -- and Benjamin B. Folsom, Esq. --
bfolsom@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Barabin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Barabin was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006.  Mr.
Barabin and his wife, Plaintiff Geraldine Barabin, filed a
personal injury lawsuit against 22 defendants in December 2006,
alleging that Mr. Barabin developed mesothelioma as a result of
exposure to defendants' asbestos-containing products.  After
multiple settlement agreements, only two defendants remained:
AstenJohnson, Inc., and Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc.

While the personal injury action was on appeal to the Ninth
Circuit, Mr. Barabin died.  Ms. Barabin filed a wrongful death
action in King County Superior Court on March 18, 2014.  In the
second action, Ms. Barabin joins as defendants not only Asten and
Scapa, but also numerous other defendants not included in the
first lawsuit.  At least one of these defendants, namely, Wright
Schuchart Harbor, is a citizen of Washington State.  Scapa and
Asten removed the wrongful death action to federal court,
asserting that the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332 because the other defendants are fraudulently
joined.  The Plaintiff moves to remand the case on the basis of
the forum defendant rule and Wright's Washington citizenship.

Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order dated
June 30, 2014, granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand, after
finding that because the Defendants raise a legitimate doubt as to
the right of removal, the case must be remanded to state court.

The case is GERALDINE BARABIN, as personal representative for the
Estate of HENRY BARABIN, Plaintiff, v. ASTENJOHNSON, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C14-0557JLR (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Robart's Decision is available at http://is.gd/bDcra0
from Leagle.com.

Geraldine Barabin, represented by:

         Meredith B Good, Esq.
         BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
         222 Rush Landing Rd.
         Tel: (415) 898-1555

AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian Bernard Smith,
Esq. -- bsmith@foleymansfield.com -- Daniel Ruttenberg, Esq. --
druttenberg@foleymansfield.com -- J. Scott Wood, Esq. --
swood@foleymansfield.com -- and Jan Elizabeth Brucker, Esq. --
jbrucker@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Christine E Dinsdale,
Esq. -- dinsdale@sohalang.com -- and Michael Ryan O'Clair, Esq. --
oclair@sohalang.com -- at SOHA & LANG PS.

Grinnell LLC, formerly known as Grinnell Corporation also known as
Grinnell Fire, Defendant, represented by Ronald C Gardner, Esq. --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- at GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Harder Mechanical Contractors Inc, Defendant, represented by Beth
M Strosky, Esq. -- bstrosky@kellerrohrback.com -- and Benjamin J
Lantz, Esq. -- blantz@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK;
and Guy A. Randles, Esq. -- garandles@stoel.com -- at STOEL RIVES.

Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Katherine M. Steele, Esq. -- ksteele@williamskastner.com -- at
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.
Paramount Supply Co, Defendant, represented by Jason H Daywitt,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc, Defendant, represented by George S.
Pitcher, Esq. -- gpitcher@williamskastner.com -- and Zackary A
Paal, Esq. -- zpaal@williamskastner.com -- at WILLIAMS KASTNER &
GIBBS; and M Elizabeth O'Neill, Esq. -- eoneill@hptylaw.com -- at
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP.

Sequoia Ventures Inc, Defendant, represented by Anthony Todaro,
Esq. -- atodaro@corrcronin.com -- and Kevin C Baumgardner, Esq. --
kbaumgardener@corrcronin.com -- at CORR CRONIN MICHELSON
BAUMGARDNER & PREECE.

Wright Schuchart Harbor, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine
Babbitt, Esq. -- dbabbitt@jjrlaw.com -- at JACKSON JENKINS
RENSTROM LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Grants Rehearing in 2 PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a
corrected order June 6, 2014, granting the petition for rehearing
en banc in the asbestos-related lawsuits styled JOYCE BARLOW
Plaintiff-Appellee v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY Defendant-
Appellant and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING &
COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire
Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly
Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining Director
Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia
Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom,
Inc., Successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in
interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B.
Fuller Co., Aventis CropScience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG
Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to
Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA,
INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in
interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; GEORGIA-
PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum
Co.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS
SETTLEMENT TRUST; CONWED CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Bestwall Gypsum Co. Defendants; and CLARA G. MOSKO
Plaintiff-Appellee v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY Defendant-
Appellant and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING &
CO., INCORPORATED; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H.
Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE
REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a
Kelly Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining
Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and
Patricia Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a
Viacom, Inc.,f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in
interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to Benjamin Foster, Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B.
Fuller Co., Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG
Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to
Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA,
INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in
interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; FOSTER
WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST;
CONWED CORPORATION; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as
successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; 3M COMPANY; MALLINCKRODT, INC.;
CROWN, CORK & SEAL CO., INC.; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; WALTER E.
CAMPBELL CO., INC.; KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, individually and as
successor to National Asbestos Company, a dissolved Delaware
Corporation; AC&R INSULATION CO., INC.; COTY, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; LUZENAC AMERICA INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC.;
BAYER CORPORATION, as successor in interest to Sterling Drug,
Inc., and Sterling-Winthrop Inc.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Defendants, NOS. 13-1839 (L), 13-1840 (4th Cir.).  The cases are
tentatively calendared for oral argument for the September 2014
session, September 16-19, 2014.  A full-text copy of the Circuit
Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wDajPCfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Awarded Summary Judgment in "Barnes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated June 30, 2014,
granted the motion for summary judgment filed by General Electric
Company, a defendant in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled
Kimberly M. Barnes, Executor of the Estate of John W. Barnes, Jr.,
and John W. Barnes III, Administrator of the Estate of Jeanette
Barnes, Plaintiffs, v. Foster Wheeler Corp., et al., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1285 (JBS/JS)(D.N.J.).  The Plaintiffs'
failure to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured
or supplied by GE favored towards granting GE's summary judgment
motion.  A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/6o8YVQfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiffs Kimberly M. Barnes and John W. Barnes III
is:

         James J. Pettit, Esq.
         LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
         801 North Kings Highway
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Attorneys for Defendant General Electric Company is Joanne
Hawkins, Esq., at SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Inmate Directed to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold A. Cary, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the correctional facility in
Sterling, Colorado, was directed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N.
Boland of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado to amend his complaint, which, among other things,
alleges that he was exposed to airborne friable asbestos while
engaged in work at the correctional facility.  A full-text copy of
the magistrate judge's decision is available at
http://is.gd/YhLgUyfrom Leagle.com.

The case is ARNOLD A. CARY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
Governor, State of Colorado, RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director,
CDOC, JAMES FALK, Warden, SCT, MAURICE FAUVEL, D.O., SCT,
Physician, KERI MCKAY, P.A., SCF, Physician Assistant, KELSEY
PRUSHA, R.N., SCF, Registered Nurse, KEVIN VORWALD, Captain, SCF,
LT. PAGE, Lieutenant, SCF, LT. MOON, Lieutenant, SCF, LT. LUECK,
Case Manager, SCF, and LT. HERREA, Case Manager, SCF, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-00411-BNB (D. Colo.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Reverses Ruling in "Folta" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Folta was allegedly exposed to asbestos at a plant
owned by defendant Ferro Engineering from 1966 to 1970.  Forty-one
years after leaving the employ of Ferro Engineering, on May 17,
2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma.
By this time, any potential asbestos-related workers' compensation
claim against Ferro Engineering was time-barred by the Workers'
Compensation Act's 25-year statute of repose for asbestos-related
injuries and the three-year statute of repose for asbestos-related
diseases under the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act.  Thus,
instead of filing a workers' compensation claim, the Plaintiff
filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County on June 29,
2011, against Ferro Engineering and 14 other defendants that
allegedly supplied Ferro Engineering with products or equipment
containing asbestos.  Ferro Engineering filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's counts against it, which was granted by the trial
court.

In an opinion dated June 27, 2014, the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, reversed the trial
court's decision insofar as the Appellate Court finds that the
Plaintiff's suit against Ferro Engineering is not barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the Act and the Workers' Occupational
Diseases Act, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is ELLEN FOLTA, Individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of James Folta, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
FERRO ENGINEERING, a division of on Marine Services Company,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 1-12-3219 (Ill. App.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/qq2awnfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sherwin-Williams, AutoZone Dropped as Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William and Linda Hasenberg filed suit in Illinois state court
against 35 Defendants, seeking to recover for injuries William
allegedly sustained from exposure to asbestos-containing products
from 1968 to 2013.  On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a
stipulation for dismissal of their claims against one Defendant,
The Sherwin-Williams Company, and a stipulation for dismissal as
to a second Defendant, AutoZone, Inc.

Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois, in an order dated June 26,
2014, acknowledged that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
their case/claims against AutoZone, without prejudice, and their
case/claims against Sherwin-Williams without prejudice.

The case is WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR., and LINDA HASENBERG,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 13-CV-1325-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Reagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/8JL8l5from
Leagle.com.

William Hasenberg, Jr., and Linda Hasenberg, Plaintiffs,
represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Esq., at Napoli Bern, et al.

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

Autozone Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Beth Kamp Esq., at Veath, Brown & James.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., as successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Donald W. Ward, Esq., Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin
Andrew Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et
al..

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

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

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

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq., Carl J. Geraci, Esq.,
Eric D. Rosser, Esq., and Noel L. Smith, Jr., Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

Cummins Inc., formerly known as Cummins Engine Co., Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at
Segal, McCambridge et al.

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

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

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

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

Georgia Pacific, LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq.,
and Carl J. Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Todd Nelson, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP.

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

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

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

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Andrew M. Voss, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al. - St.
Louis.

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ryan T.
Barke, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC - Swansea.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Maureen A. McGlynn, Esq. --
mo@kmblaw1.com -- and Joseph B. McGlynn, Jr., Esq. --
jbm@mcglynnlaw.com -- at Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC.

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

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

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Andrew M. Voss, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et
al. - St. Louis.

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

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq.,
and Matthew J. Morris, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

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

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

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin Andrew
Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HLC Fails in Insurance Suit Against Continental
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Continental Casualty Company's and National Fire
Insurance Company of Hartford's filed a motion to dismiss an
action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith
arising out of the alleged failure of Continental and National to
fulfill their obligations under two stop gap liability policies
issued to plaintiff Homer Laughlin China Company for an underlying
asbestos claim filed by one of HLC's former employees.

Judge John Preston Bailey of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia, Wheeling, in an order
dated June 27, 2014, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, after determining that because the Plaintiff does not
allege that Patricia D. Little's last day of last exposure to
asbestos occurred during the policy period, Continental is not
responsible to indemnify HLC for the settlement in the underlying
lawsuit styled Patricia D. Little and Kenneth P. Little, her
husband, v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 12-C-865,
in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  As a final
matter, having found no breach of contract, HLC's claim for breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing must also fail, Judge
Bailey said.

The case is THE HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF HARTFORD, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-
13.(BAILEY)(N.D.W.Va.).  A full-text copy of Judge Bailey's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/IDx2E3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Applications OK'd in Garlock Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued
an order dated June 30, 2014, granting the "Application[s] for
Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice" requesting admission of
Charles B. Walther, Fred L. Alvarez, and Tony L. Draper,
respectively.  Representatives of Legal Newsline, et al., are
seeking to appear in the Chapter 11 case of Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, to pursue their requests for information
relating to information filed by asbestos personal injury
claimants.

The case is LEGAL NEWSLINE, et al., Plaintiff, v. GARLOCK SEALING
TECHNOLOGIE, LLC, Defendant, NO. 3:13-CV-464 (W.D.N.C.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Cogburn's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/q7IFxIfrom Leagle.com.

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

Garrison Litigation Management, Ltd, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq., Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq., and
Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson,
P.A.

The Anchor Packing Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq., Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq., and
Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson,
P.A.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Teresa E. Lazzaroni, Esq. -- tlazzaroni@hptylaw.com -- at
Hawkins & Parnell LLP.

Everest Reinsurance Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Charles Brittain Walther, Esq., Fred L. Alvarez, Esq., J. Samuel
Gorham, III, Esq., and Tony L. Draper, Esq., at Walker Wilcox
Matousek, LLP.

Legal Newsline, Appellant, represented by Alan W. Duncan, Esq. --
amber.duncan@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore LLP; Andrew May,
Esq., and Steven Pflaum, Esq., at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP;
and Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Esq. -- srussell@turningpointlit.com
-- at Van Laningham Duncan PLLC.

Belluck & Fox, LLP, Defendant, represented by G. Martin Hunter,
Esq., at Shuford Hunter, PLLC.

Shein Law Center Ltd, Defendant, represented by G. Martin Hunter,
Esq., at Shuford Hunter, PLLC.

Mark Iola, LLP, Defendant, represented by G. Martin Hunter, Esq.,
at Shuford Hunter, PLLC.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles
Brittain Walther, Esq., Fred L. Alvarez, Esq., and Tony L. Draper,
Esq., at Walker Wilcox Matousek, LLP; and J. Samuel Gorham, III,
Gorham & Crone, PLLC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honeywell International, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by H.
Lee Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P. & Nava Hazan, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Appellee, represented by Albert
Franklin Durham, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A., Ashley Kerns
Neal, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A., Garland Stuart Cassada,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., John R. Miller, Jr., Rayburn,
Cooper & Durham, P.A., Jonathan C. Krisko, Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson, P. A., Louis Adams Bledsoe, III, Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson, P. A., Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, P.A., Ross Robert Fulton, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
Shelley Koon Abel, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham & William Samuel
Smoak, Jr., Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A..

Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
Appellee, represented by Travis Waterbury Moon, Moon Wright &
Houston, PLLC, Trevor W. Swett, III, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
Andrew Thomas Houston, Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC & Richard
Steele Wright, Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC.

Coltec Industries, Inc., Intervenor, represented by E. Taylor
Stukes, Moore & Van Allen, PLLC & Mark Andrew Nebrig, Moore & Van
Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RT Vanderbilt & Art Clay Win Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin issued an opinion and order
dated June 23, 2014, granting the motions for summary judgment
filed by R. T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc., and American Art Clay Co.,
Inc., defendants in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled CARY MILLER and WESTERN NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Co-Personal
Representatives of the Estate of DON PETER MILLER, Deceased, and
JANE E. MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ART CLAY CO INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 12-CV-516-JDP (W.D. Wis.).

Judge Peterson ruled that because the Plaintiffs lack sufficient
evidence to show that the Defendants' products were a substantial
factor contributing to Don Peter Miller's mesothelioma, the
Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and failure to warn must be
dismissed on summary judgment.  Judge Peterson further ruled that
because the Plaintiffs cannot prove causation, their claim based
on the Defendants' willful and wanton conduct must also be
dismissed on summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Peterson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ABX1Xnfrom Leagle.com.

Jane E. Miller, Cary Miller, as personal representative of the
estate of Don Peter Miller, and Western National Trust Company, as
personal representative of the estate of Don Peter Miller,
Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants, represented by Lynn R.
Laufenberg, and Michael L. Laufenberg, Esq., at Laufenberg,
Stombaugh & Jassak, S.C.; Darren Patrick McDowell, Esq., Gregory
W. Lisemby, Esq., Kevin W. Paul, Esq., and Tiffany Newlin
Dickenson, Esq., at Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

American Art Clay Co Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendant,
Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Anissa Marie
Mediger, Esq. -- amediger@murname.com -- and Kathryn Rose Downey,
Esq. -- kdowney@murname.com -- at Murnane Brandt.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by
William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..

RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc., sued individually and as successor-
in-interest to International Talc Company, Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Dustin T. Woehl,
Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik, S.C. & James J. Kriva, Kasdorf, Lewis &
Swietlik, S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Proctor" Suit Allowed to Continue Against Andal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Andal Corporation
moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-
claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff James
Proctor has failed to identify Andal or any of its alleged
predecessor companies as a source of his exposure.  In a decision
and order dated June 26, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied Andal's motion having
determined that the evidence presented on the motion raises
material triable issues of fact whether Andal, as successor-in-
interest to the Circle corporate entities, is responsible for Mr.
Proctor's asbestos exposure at the WTC site by reason of Circle
Floors and Star Circle.

The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR and JOY C. PROCTOR, Plaintiffs,
v. ALCOA, INC., et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190040/13, MOTION
SEQ. 005 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/rV6KHKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H&V Dropped as Defendant in "Ricks" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hollingsworth & Vose Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction an action ariseing out of plaintiff John Sam
Ricks, Jr.'s exposure to asbestos-containing products alleged to
be manufactured or otherwise attributable to over 30 defendants of
which H&V is one.  In an order dated June 24, 2014, Judge Terrence
W. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted the motion,
holding that H&V's manufacture of paper materials in Massachusetts
and shipment of those materials to Victor in states other than
North Carolina establishes no intentional connection between H&V
and North Carolina.  That it entered its paper proucts into the
stream of commerce with the knowledge that they would be
incorporated into products later sold in North Carolina is not
sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, Judge Boyle said.

The case is JOHN SAM RICKS, JR. and BRENDA RICKS, Plaintiffs, v.
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-37-BO (E.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Boyle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Butd3bfrom
Leagle.com.

John Sam Ricks, Jr., and Brenda Ricks, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet
Ward Black, Ward Black Law.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore
Leatherwood LLP.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Coen Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
W. Bouch, Leath Bouch & Seekings.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant,
represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..
Flowserve US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Thomas,
Williams Mullen.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter A. Santos, Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan & Kirk G.
Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan.
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Hobart Brothers Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sarah M. Bowman,
Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..

IMO Industries, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Delaval Turbine, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joshua H. Bennett, Bennett & Guthrie, PLLC.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Esq., at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Williamson,
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

The Lincoln Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Pneumo Abex LLC, sued as successor-in-interest to Abex
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch & Seekings.

SPX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver, Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter
A. Santos, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Terex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq.,
at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq., at
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Esq., at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Wabco Holdings Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq.,
at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy
E. Tomlin, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William
Michael Starr, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B.
Oakley, Poole Mahoney PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERCLA Suit v. ARG Corp. to Proceed to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Government spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars cleaning up hazardous waste at an old factory site in
South Bend, Indiana.  The government filed a suit against ARG
Corporation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act seeking to recover the money the
Environmental Protection Agency spent on the clean-up.  Whether or
not the government can recover from ARG depends on whether a
"disposal" of hazardous waste occurred while ARG owned the
property.  The government has filed for summary judgment arguing
that the facts show that a disposal occurred.  ARG has also filed
for summary judgment arguing that the facts show that a disposal
didn't occur.

Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an
opinion and order on June 27, 2014, finding that the dispute is a
disputed issue of fact that will have to be decided at trial.
Therefore, Judge Simon denied the parties' cross motions for
summary judgment.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARG
CORPORATION and NORBERT R. TOUBES, Defendants, CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-
311 (N.D. Ind.).  A full-text copy of Judge Simon's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/vVLR2nfrom Leagle.com.

United States of America, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Ann
Abend, US Department of Justice, Kristin M Furrie, US Department
of Justice & Wayne T Ault, US Attorney's Office.

ARG Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert W Mysliwiec,
Robert W Mysliwiec PC.

Norbert R Toubes, as distributee of ARG Corporation's assets,
Defendant, represented by Robert W Mysliwiec, Robert W Mysliwiec
PC.

Norbert R Toubes, as a distributee of ARG Corporation's assets,
ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Robert W Mysliwiec, Robert W
Mysliwiec PC.

City of South Bend acting through its Department of Redevelopment,
ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Cheryl A Greene, City of
South Bend Attorney's Office.

City of South Bend, acting through its Department of
Redevelopment, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Daniel Philip
Cory, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, Jeffrey D Claflin, Plews
Shadley Racher & Braun & Thao Trong Nguyen, Plews Shadley Racher &
Braun.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9/11 Cleanup Worker's PI Claims Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Virginia Barbosa alleges that she worked for ABM
Cleaning Services, a company that performed cleaning services at
various buildings in the vicinity of the World Trade Center in the
weeks and months following September 11, 2001, including Two World
Financial Center.  In an action, she asserts claims against a
number of defendants for injuries she allegedly suffered as a
result of that work.  After discovery, two of the defendants,
Structure Tone, Inc. s/h/a Structure Tone (UK), Inc. and Structure
Tone Global Services, Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss
the claims against them.

In an order and opinion dated June 24, 2014, Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted Structure Tone's motion, holding that while
Structure Tone admitted that it was the "on call general
contractor" for Merrill Lynch at Two World Trade Center, the
record shows that it was not the general contractor responsible
for the asbestos abatement work that Barbosa performed.
Accordingly, Barbosa's claim pursuant to Section 241(6) of the New
York Labor Law against Structure Tone must be dismissed for the
reasons set forth in the cases captioned Wong v. New York Times
Co., 297 A.D.2d 544, 549 (1st Dep't 2002), and Russin v. Louis N.
Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 317 (1981): because Structure Tone
was not the general contractor responsible for the conditions of
Barbosa's work.

The case is VIRGINIA BARBOSA, Plaintiff, v. 1 WORLD TRADE CENTER
L.L.C. et al., Defendants, NOS. 06 CIV. 1649 (AKH), 21 MC 102
(AKH)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Hellerstein's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/Bw7fRefrom Leagle.com.

Virginia Barbosa, Plaintiff, represented by:

         WORBY GRONER EDELMAN, LLP
         White Plains Office
         11 Martine Ave
         Penthouse
         White Plains, NY 10606
         Tel: (914) 686-3700

            -- and --

         NAPOLI BERN, L.L.P.
         Empire State Building
         350 5th Avenue #7413
         New York, NY 10118
         Tel: (888) 870-2757

Mayore Estates LLC, Defendant, represented by Stanley Goos, Esq.
-- sgoos@harrisbeach.com -- at Harris Beach, PLLC; and Charles
John Gayner, Esq. -- cgayner@mlcolaw.com -- at Maloof, Lebowitz,
Connahan & Oleske.

Rockrose Development Corp, Defendant, represented by Frank A
Scanga, Esq.

Century 21, Inc. Century 21, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Stanley Goos, Esq., at Harris Beach, PLLC.

Blue Millennium Blue Millennium Realty, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Stanley Goos, Esq., at Harris Beach, PLLC.

80 Lafayette Associa 80 Lafayette Associates LLC, Defendant,
represented by Stanley Goos, Esq., at Harris Beach, PLLC; and
Charles John Gayner, Esq., at Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske.

Mayore Estates LLC a Mayore Estates LLC and 80 Lafayette
Association LLC as Tenants in Common, Defendant, represented by
Stanley Goos, Esq., at Harris Beach, PLLC; Charles John Gayner,
Esq., at Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske.

New York University, Defendant, represented by Richard M. Fedrow,
Esq., at Bivona & Cohen, P.C.

Weston Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Andrew
Harrington, Esq., at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Judith Rita
Cohen, Esq. -- cohenj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- at Dickstein Shapiro
LLP.

HILLMANN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, LLC, ADR Provider, represented by
Salvatore J. Calabrese, Esq. -- chrisc@rochester-law.com --
Calabrese & Calabrese, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Partially Wins in Ex-Workers' Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company filed a motion to Counts III and IV in the
complaint filed by the company's former employees.  Count III
alleges violation of the asbestos regulations contained in the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, while Count IV alleges
violation of the silica/silica dust regulations contained in OSH
Act.

Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, in a decision dated June 12, 2014,
recommended that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part.
The Court recommended that, because the Plaintiffs' third cause of
action is premised on alleged violations of 29 C.F.R. Section
1910.1001, the claim be dismissed with prejudice, and further
recommended that, to the extent the Plaintiff's fourth cause of
action is brought as a negligence per se claim, the claim be
dismissed with prejudice.

The case is DANIEL A. ATCHISON, PAUL GONZALES, BENNEY GONZALES,
LAWRENCE GUERERRO, and JAMES SILVA, Plaintiffs, v. BNSF RAILWAY
COMPANY RAILROAD CO., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-02621-MSK-
KLM (D.Colo.).  A full-text copy of the Recommendation is
available at http://is.gd/w2iqQSfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel A. Atchison, Benney Gonzales, Paul Gonzales, Lawrence
Guererro, and James Silva, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark T.
Berry, Esq., at Sammons & Berry, P.C.  BNSF Railway Company
Railroad Co., Defendant, represented by William Robert Floyd, Esq.
-- wrfloyd@mapalaw.com -- at McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel;
and Chad Michael Knight, Esq. -- knightc@hallevns.com -- at Hall &
Evans, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Murray" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury styled JOHN MURRAY and MARY
MURRAY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al.
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190554/12, MOT. SEQ. 005 (N.Y. Sup.),
defendant Goodrich Corporation moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all other claims asserted against it
on the ground that the plaintiffs have not shown that Goodrich
tiles were a cause of plaintiff John Murray's asbestos exposure.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated June 27, 2014 -- a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/dggzlCfrom Leagle.com --
denied Goodrich's motion holding that in light of Mr. Murray's
plain testimony that he worked in the vicinity of others who cut
and installed asbestos-containing Goodrich tiles, the affidavits
of Joan M. Taffi, a Goodrich consultant, at best give rise to
credibility issues which must be decided by a jury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Industries' Bid to Junk PI Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled HARRIET NOBLE and
ROBERT BERGER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et
al., Defendants, NO. 190074/13, MOTION SEQ. 001 (N.Y. Sup.),
defendant Lennox Industries, Inc., moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all other claims asserted against it
on the ground that plaintiff Harriet Noble misidentified Lennox
water-based boilers as a source of her asbestos exposure.

In a decision and order dated June 27, 2014 -- a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/fwMUURfrom Leagle.com -- Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
Lennox's motion pointing out that the Court has held several times
under virtually identical facts and circumstances that the
unsupported opinions of William Drake, Lennox's Corporate Service
Manager of Residential Heating Products, merely give rise to
credibility issues which must be decided by a jury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Benjamin Jacob Appell, who is confined in the Maricopa
County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint,
alleging exposure to asbestos while incarcerated, and an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  Judge David G. Campbell
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in an
order dated July 7, 2014, granted the Application to Proceed, but
dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend.

The case is Benjamin Jacob Appell, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-1218-PHX-DGC
(MEA)(D. Ariz.).  A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/2MAmoXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas High Court Uphelds Ruling in "Bostic" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas, in an opinion delivered on July 11,
2014, affirmed an appeals court's judgment in the case captioned
SUSAN ELAINE BOSTIC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE HEIRS AND ESTATE OF TIMOTHY SHAWN BOSTIC, DECEASED; HELEN
DONNAHOE; AND KYLE ANTHONY BOSTIC, Petitioners, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, Respondent, NO. 10-0775 (Tex.), and held that the
standard of substantial factor causation recognized in Borg-Warner
Corp. v. Flores applies to mesothelioma cases, including the
instant case.  The Supreme Court, however, said that the
plaintiffs were not required to prove that but for Bostic's
exposure to Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation's asbestos-
containing joint compound, Bostic would not have contracted
mesothelioma.  In this regard, the Supreme Court disagreed with
language in the court of appeals' decision but agreed with that
court that the Plaintiffs failed to offer legally sufficient
evidence of causation, and accordingly affirmed the court of
appeals' judgment.  A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's
Decision penned by Justice Don R. Willett is available at
http://is.gd/LocdBofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 48 Defendants Dropped in "Denton" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order dated
July 2, 2014, dismissing, without prejudice, 48 defendants in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled ROBERT FRAZIOR
DENTON, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1243-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.), per the
stipulations filed by the Plaintiff and the lack of objection
thereto.  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision is
available at http://is.gd/ECoq67from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment for Rockwell & Lennox Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
John P. Gregovich, personal representative of the estate of George
Gregovich, and Luanne Gregovich by John Gregovich, guardian of her
person, and Sandra Budzien, guardian of her estate, appeal from
the orders granting summary judgment to 16 defendants.  George
Gregovich alleged that exposure to asbestos from the 16 defendants
caused his mesothelioma.  Gregovich, in the appeal, contends that
the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it
refused to consider the summary-judgment materials he submitted
either because the response briefs were over the local-rule, 25-
page limit or because Gregovich filed his summary-judgment
materials a few days late.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, reversed the grant
of summary judgment of all the defendants, except Rockwell
Automation and Lennox Industries, and remanded with directions
that the circuit court allow Gregovich to file its summary-
judgment materials as to Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Crane
Company, Kohler Company, and Weil-McLain and to consider
Gregovich's summary-judgment materials already filed as to the
other defendants.  The Court of Appeals directed the circuit court
to decide the summary-judgment motions broken down as to each of
the 14 defendants.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting summary judgment
to Rockwell Automation because the circuit court accepted
Gregovich's summary-judgment materials opposing Rockwell's
summary-judgment motion as that response brief met the page
limits, and because the trial court's decision dismissing Rockwell
was correct.  The Court of Appeals also affirmed the order
granting summary judgment to Lennox because Gregovich's argument
as to Lennox is not adequately developed.

The case is ESTATE OF GEORGE GREGOVICH, BY JOHN GREGOVICH,
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE GREGOVICH AND
LUANNE GREGOVICH, BY JOHN GREGOVICH, GUARDIAN OF HER PERSON, AND
SANDRA BUDZIEN, GUARDIAN OF HER ESTATE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v.
AUER STEEL & HEATING SUPPLY, AURORA PUMP, CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.,
CRANE CO., EATON CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ITT CORPORATION, D/B/A BELL & GOSSETT PUMPS
AND KENNEDY VALVES, KOHLER CO., LENNOX INDUSTRIES, INC., MILWAUKEE
STOVE & FURNACE SUPPLY CO., ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, STERLING FLUID
SYSTEMS USA, LLC, FMC CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
PEERLESS PUMPS, SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC., WEIL-MCLAIN AND
YEOMANS CHICAGO CORPORATION P/K/A CHICAGO PUMP CO., DEFENDANTS-
RESPONDENTS, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OAKFABCO, INC.,
RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO. AND SPX CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, APPEAL
NOS. 2013AP1234, 2013AP2741 (Wis. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated July 15, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/gwFoQK
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Court Reverses Ruling in "Ganoe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rose Marie Ganoe, et al., appeal from a trial court's
order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant
Metalclad Insulation Corporation.  The decedent in the wrongful
death action was diagnosed with mesothelioma and sued multiple
corporate defendants for exposing him to asbestos at his
workplace.  Metalclad moved for summary judgment based on (1) the
Plaintiffs' factually devoid discovery responses, (2) a statement
by the decedent's co-worker that he had "never heard of"
Metalclad, and (3) a statement by Metalclad's person most
knowledgeable that Metalclad had never performed work at the
decedent's workplace.  Metalclad subsequently produced a document
showing that it had performed work at the decedent's workplace.
In response, the Plaintiffs amended their discovery responses,
citing to specific facts linking Metalclad to the decedent's
exposure to asbestos.  Nevertheless, the trial court granted
summary judgment for Metalclad.  The Plaintiffs, in appeal, argue
that the Defendant did not meet its burden of proof as the moving
party on summary judgment, and that they also raised triable
issues of material fact.  The Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Three, agreed and reversed.

The case is ROSE MARIE GANOE, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION, Defendant and
Respondent, NO. B248941 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated July 8, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ciA8lz
from Leagle.com.

Sharon J. Arkin, Esq., at The Arkin Law Firm, and Simona A.
Farrise, Esq., at Farrise Firm, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Bradford J. DeJardin, Esq. -- bdejardin@mckennalong.com -- and
Caren D. Dombrowski, Esq. -- cdombrowski@mckennalong.com -- at
McKenna, Long & Aldridge, for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cos. Granted Summary Judgment in "Harris" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robin L. Harris, individually and as the Administrator
of the Estate of Billy David Harris, filed a diversity action
asserting five claims all of which center upon Harris having
contracted mesothelioma from breathing asbestos dust and later
dying as a result thereof.  Crane Co., individually and as
successor-in-interest to both National U.S. Radiator and Pacific
Steel Boiler; Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., individually and as successor-
in-interest to both Aquachem and Nebraska Boiler Division; Riley
Power, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Babcock
Borsig Power, Inc., Riley Stoker Corporation, and D.B. Riley; and
Trane U.S. Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to both
American Standard, Inc., and American Radiator and Standard
Sanitary Corporation, have moved for summary judgment on all
claims.

Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, in a
memorandum order and opinion dated July 3, 2014, granted summary
judgment as to the four defendants, holding that the Plaintiff's
forecast of evidence, taken in the light most favorable to her as
the non-moving party, is insufficient to establish a genuine
dispute as to any material fact.

The case is ROBIN L. HARRIS, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Billy David Harris, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AJAX
BOILER, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00311-MR-
DLH (W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/WYYnDDfrom Leagle.com.

Robin L. Harris and Robin L. Harris, Individually and as Executrix
of the Estate of Billy David Harris, Plaintiffs, represented by:

         Cathy Anne Williams, Esq.
         Daniel Ray Francis, Esq.
         William M. Graham, Esq.
         WALLACE & GRAHAM
         525 N. Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144

            -- and --

         Christopher Norris, Esq.
         NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
         2626 Cole Avenue
         Suite 450
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Tel: 214-774-2258
         Fax: 214-393-7897

American Standard, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore Leatherwood
LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Esq. --
tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- and William Michael Starr, Esq.
-- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- at Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- at Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC;
and Stephen B. Williamson, Esq. -- swilliamson@vwlawfirm.com -- at
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

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

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Esq., at Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Duke University Health System, Inc., Movant, represented by Donna
Renfrow Rutala, Esq. -- drr@youngmoorelaw.com -- and Michelle
Allean Greene, Esq. -- mag@youngmoorelaw.com -- at Young, Moore &
Henderson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objections to Ch. 11 Trustees' Report Overruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 27, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California held a hearing regarding a motion
to approve and settle Tenth Annual Report and Accounting, Audited
Financial Statements, and Claim Report filed by the trustees in
the Chapter 11 case of Western Asbestos Company.  Michael J.
Mandelbrot, claiming to represent various beneficiaries of the
Western Asbestos Settlement Trust, and Michael McDermott, a
beneficiary of the Western Trust, opposed the Motion.

In a memorandum dated July 14, 2014, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas
E. Carlson overruled both objections.  In overruling the
Mandelbrot Objection, Judge Carlson pointed out that Mr.
Mandelbrot lacked standing because he is legally a stranger to the
current proceeding with no standing to challenge the report and
the record shows that he has been ordered to cease all
representation of beneficiaries of that trust.  In overruling the
McDermott Objection, Judge Carlson noted that McDemott attempted
to adopt the Mandelbrot Objection as his own after the court ruled
that Mandelbrot lacked standing but acknowledged at the hearing
that he has no knowledge of the facts asserted in the Mandelbrot
Objection.  Judge Carlson said it is not appropriate for McDermott
to assert the Mandelbrot Objections without himself attesting that
they have a basis in fact.

The case is In re WESTERN ASBESTOS COMPANY, CASE NO. 13-31914 TEC
(Bankr. N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Carlson's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/MMeENVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Flips Ruling in Suit v. Bankrupt Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion dated July 21,
2014, reversing the judgment of a lower court in a case involving
asbestos plaintiffs who filed an appeal asking the Court to decide
whether apportionment of damages is appropriate in the wrongful
death and asbestos litigation context, and whether the "use
plaintiffs" are precluded from recovering damages by not formally
joining in the proceedings.

The case is an appeal from judgments in favor of plaintiffs and
use plaintiffs in four asbestos cases that were consolidated for
trial in Baltimore City.  All of the plaintiffs were separately
awarded damages for their wrongful death claims against Wallace &
Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust.  The four decedents who are the
subject of these consolidated cases all worked for various
companies (most frequently at Bethlehem Steel and American
Smelting and Refining Company) where Wallace & Gale, Co., which
filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code on November 16, 1985.

The Court of Appeals, by way of Judge Clayton Greene, Jr., held
that the intermediate appellate court erred when it held that the
trial court erroneously refused to allow expert testimony and jury
instructions on apportionment of damages, and when it held that
the failure of the use plaintiffs to formally join in the action
before the statute of limitations had run precluded them from
recovering damages.

The case is SONIA CARTER, et al. v. THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS
SETTLEMENT TRUST, NO. 84, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2013 (Md.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Greene's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/9UQhqL
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Court Refuses to Approve CP Hall Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a
memorandum opinion dated July 15, 2014, refusing to approve a
settlement entered into by Joseph A. Baldi, the Chapter 7 trustee
for The C.P. Hall Company, with two groups of creditors, until the
objection of another creditor is resolved.

Under the settlement, asbestos-related personal injury creditors
represented by the law firms Cooney & Conway and O'Brien Law Firm
creditors would relinquish their position that their claims were
secured.  The claims would be paid instead as "general unsecured
claims" without any sort of administrative or priority status.  In
return, the claims would be "allowed in full."

Another creditor, James Shipley, as representative of his late
wife's estate, objected to the settlement, complaining that it
cannot be approved until his adversary complaint against the
Cooney & Conway and O'Brien creditors is resolved.  In that
adversary proceeding, Shipley seeks a determination that he has a
lien on certain insurance proceeds, that any lien the Cooney &
Conway and O'Brien creditors have is invalid, and that to the
extent both he and these creditors have liens, his is superior to
theirs.

Judge Goldgar agreed with the objecting creditor, holding that the
creditor has statutory rights to object to the claims and obtain a
ruling on his objection.  The settlement cannot be approved if
approval would deprive the creditor of those rights, Judge Goldgar
said.

The case is In re: THE C.P. HALL COMPANY, Chapter 7, Debtor, NO.
11 B 26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Goldgar's Decision is available at http://is.gd/cmee8cfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Ct. Refuses to Junk Suits in CP Hall Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a
memorandum opinion dated July 21, 2014, giving an asbestos-related
personal injury creditor in the Chapter 7 case of The C.P. Hall
Company another chance to accomplish service of complaints and
summonses against groups of creditors represented by the law firms
Cooney & Conway and O'Brien Law Firm.  The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaints for insufficient service of
process.  While Judge Goldgar agreed with the defendants that
service was insufficient, he refused to dismiss the complaints
after determining that it remains reasonably conceivable that the
creditor will be able to serve the law firms' creditors in a way
that complies with the rules.

The adversary cases are JAMES SHIPLEY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH
ABRAMS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13 A 1070 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).
and JAMES SHIPLEY, Plaintiff, v. BYRON T. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13 A 1156 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).  The Chapter 7
case is In re: THE C.P. HALL COMPANY, Chapter 7, Debtor, NOs. 11 B
26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Goldgar's
July 21 Decision is available at http://is.gd/xueNENfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Ordered to $500MM to Fibro Creditors
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Johns-Manville Corporation's bankruptcy case, Common Law
Settlement Counsel, Statutory and Hawaii Direct Action Settlement
Counsel, and Asbestos Personal Injury Plaintiffs appeal from U.S.
District Judge Koeltl's reversal of a bankruptcy court's final
judgment.  U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lifland had required appellees --
The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company -- to pay over $500 million to asbestos plaintiffs based
on Travelers' obligations under certain settlement agreements.
The district court reversed, holding that conditions precedent to
payment under the Agreements were never met, and that Travelers'
obligation to pay therefore never matured.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
district court's ruling and remanded with instructions to
reinstate the order of the bankruptcy court.  The Second Circuit
concluded that the relevant conditions precedent were satisfied,
thus vacating the district court's order.  In addition, given that
Travelers did not timely raise its arguments regarding the
Agreements' conditions that the movants either execute a specific
number of releases and deliver them into escrow or dismiss their
claims with prejudice, the Second Circuit deemed those arguments
waived.  Finally, the Second Circuit held that the bankruptcy
court correctly applied prejudgment interest to the amount owed
and that it correctly calculated the total payment due from the
appropriate date.

The case is IN RE: JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, MANVILLE
CORPORATION, MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, MANVILLE EXPORT
CORPORATION, JOHNS-MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, MANVILLE
SALES CORPORATION, f/k/a JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION,
successor by merger to MANVILLE BUILDINGS MATERIALS CORPORATION,
MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION and MANVILLE SERVICE CORPORATION,
MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL CANADA, INC., MANVILLE CANADA, INC.,
MANVILLE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, MANVILLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION,
ALLAN-DEANE CORPORATION, KEN-CARYL RANCH CORPORATION, JOHNS-
MANVILLE IDAHO, INC., MANVILLE CANADA SERVICE INC., SUNBELT
CONTRACTORS, INC., Debtors; COMMON LAW SETTLEMENT COUNSEL,
STATUTORY AND HAWAII DIRECT ACTION SETTLEMENT COUNSEL, Movants-
Appellants, ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PLAINTIFFS, Interested
Parties-Appellants, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, TRAVELERS
CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, f/k/a AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY, Objectors-Appellees, DOCKET NOS. 12-1094-BK(L), 12-1150-
BK(CON), 12-1205-BK(CON)(2d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/McXe7Cfrom Leagle.com.

Matthew Gluck, Esq. -- mgluck@milberg.com -- and Kent A. Bronson,
Esq. -- kbronson@milberg.com -- at Milberg LLP, in New York, on
the brief); and Paul D. Clement, Esq. -- pclement@bancroftpllc.com
-- at Bancroft PLLC, in Washington, D.C., for Movant-Appellant
Statutory and Hawaii Direct Action Settlement Counsel.

Ronald Barliant, Esq. -- ronald.barliant@goldbergkohn.com --
Kenneth S. Ulrich, Esq. -- kenneth.ulrich@goldbergkohn.com -- and
Danielle Wildern Juhle, Esq. -- danielle.juhle@goldbergkohn.com --
at Goldberg Kohn Ltd., in Chicago, Illinois, for Movant-Appellant
Common Law Settlement Counsel.

Sander L. Esserman, Esq. -- esserman@sbep-law.com -- and Cliff I.
Taylor, Esq. -- taylor@sbep-law.com -- at Stutzman, Bromberg,
Esserman & Plifka, P.C., in Dallas, Texas, for Interested Parties-
Appellants Asbestos Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

Barry R. Ostrager, Esq. -- bostrager@stblaw.com -- Andrew T.
Frankel, Esq. -- afrankel@stblaw.com -- and Jonathan M. Weiss,
Esq. -- jweiss@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, in
New York, for Objectors-Appellees The Travelers Indemnity Company
& Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Punitive Damage Claims in 27 PI Suits Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) relating
to HECTOR L. SANCHEZ, et al., v. VARIOUS DEFENDANTS, MDL DOCKET
NO. 75 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued an
order dated July 9, 2014, granting the motions for judgment filed
in more than 20 asbestos-related cases and dismissing the claims
for punitive damages addressed by those motions.  In all actions
that are not wrongful death or survival actions, Judge Robreno
granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, if
appropriate.

The 27 motions were among the approximately 1,800 motions for
judgment on the pleadings regarding punitive damages claims that
have been filed in cases that are part of the maritime docket in
MDL 875, the consolidated asbestos products liability
multidistrict litigation pending in the District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The Plaintiffs in these cases
are various merchant marines and their representatives, survivors,
and spouses, and Defendants are shipowners.  The Defendants have
moved for partial judgment on the pleadings with respect to
Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages.

Judge Robreno concluded that punitive damages are available as a
matter of law to seamen bringing actions based upon the general
maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness.  They are unavailable,
however, in wrongful death and survival actions, and thus the
Court granted the Defendants' motion as to all the Plaintiffs
bringing wrongful death and survival actions, Judge Robreno's
ruling said.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Order is available at
http://is.gd/NZTLX2from Leagle.com.  A full-text copy of the
memorandum explaining Judge Robreno's Order is available at
http://is.gd/DeJiSHfrom Leagle.com.

In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. Vi),
represented by John E. Herrick, Esq., and John David Hurst, Esq.,
at Motley Rice LLC.

Alaska, Alaska Maritime Asbestos Plaintiffs, Movant, represented
by Leonard C. Jaques, The Maritime Asbestosis Legal Clinic & John
E. Herrick, Motley Rice LLC.

A-Best Products Company, Inc., Movant, Represented By Keith E.
Whitson, Esq., at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.

ACANDS, INC., Movant, represented by Douglas C. Perkins, Esq., at
Hartig, Rhodes, Norman, Mahoney, & Edwards; and Richard D.
Schuster, Esq., at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.

Acorn Iron and Supply Company, Movant, represented by Edmund K.
John, Esq., and G. Daniel Bruch, Jr., Esq., at Swartz Campbell,
LLC; and John E. Herrick, Esq., at Motley Rice LLC.

Alaska Steamship Company, Movant, Represented By Henry E.
Billingsley, II, Esq., at Tucker Ellis & West LLP & Katherine M.
Steele, Esq., at Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC.

Alfred Conhagen, Inc., Dover Resources, Inc., Durametallic Corp.,
Eg&G Sealol, Inc., Excelsior, Inc., Ellicott Machine Corp.,
Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (d/b/a Elliot Co.), Greene, Tweed &
Co., Plibri, Movant, represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi,
Esq., at Switzer, Murphy & Polito Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J.
Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C.

AMOCO SHIPPING COMPANY, Movant, represented by JOHN G. GAUL,
MARON, Esq. -- jgg@maronmarvel.com -- at MARVEL, BRADLEY &
ANDERSON, P.A., JULIA R. BROUHARD, Esq., at RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE &
DAVIES PLL, LINA M. CARRERAS, Esq. -- lmc@maronmarvel.com -- MARON
MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON PA; and WAYNE A. MARVEL, Esq. --
wam@maronmarvel.com -- at MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON PA.

AND FELT PRODUCTS MFG. CO., Movant, represented by DONALD C. MC
LEAN, Esq. -- donald.mclean@arentfox.com -- at ARENT, FOX,
KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN.

ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Movant, represented by MARIA A.
KORTAN, GOODRICH CORPORATION.

BABCOCK AND WILCOX, Movant, represented by RONALD S. KOPP, Esq. --
pkostoff@ralaw.com -- at ROETZEL & ANDRESS.

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Movant, represented by JILL G. OKUN,
Esq. -- jill.okun@squirepb.com -- at SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY.

Bfgoodrich Company, Movant, Represented by Richard D. Schuster,
Esq., at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.

BLACK & DECKER CORP, Movant, represented by JOHN PARKER SWEENEY,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE PLLC.

CCR DEFENDANTS, Movant, represented by DAVID M. BATTAN, SHEA AND
GARDNER.

CERTAIN PERIPHERAL DEFENDANTS -- A.B. BOYD CO., ARGO INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, AUBURN MANUFACTURING CO., BRYAN STEAM, CHAMPION
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, COFFIN TURBO PUMP, INC. misnamed as
COOFIN, Movant, represented by GREGG L. SPYRIDON, SPYRIDON KOCH &
PALERMO LLC.

CERTAIN SHIPOWNER, Movant, represented by CHRISTOPHER C. KOEHLER,
Esq., at THOMPSON, HINE & FLORY, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON,
CARLE & DAVIES PLL, RICHARD C. BINZLEY, Esq. --
Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- at THOMPSON, HINE AND
FLORY, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- at THOMPSON,
HINE LLP, SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE &
DAVIES, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP, SUSAN SQUIRE BOX,
ROETZEL ANDRESS, SUSAN K. DIRKS, Esq. --
Susan.Dirks@ThompsonHine.com -- at THOMPSON HINE LLP & TIMOTHY M.
FOX, ULMER & BERNE.

Chigago Tube & Iron Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy
& Polito Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons
P.C..

Clayton Manufacturing, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C..

COFFIN TURBO PUMP, INC. MISNAMED AS COFFIN PUMP, INC. AND CROSBY
VALVE, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by GEORGE
F. FITZPATRICK, JR., Esq. -- gfitzpat@smbtrials.com -- at SWANSON,
MARTIN & BELL.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., Movant, represented by JOAN M.
ENGLUND, CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.

CROSBY VALVE & GAGE, Movant, represented by JOHN CHARLES STEWART.

Cummings Manufacturing, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C..

DEFENDANTS, Movant, represented by JOHN A. TURLIK, SEGAL
MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, JEFFREY W. RUPLE, BUCKLEY
KING, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. --
kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP, MICHAEL J.
ZUKOWSKI, K&L GATES, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE &
DAVIES, SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES & STEPHEN
M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP.

DIAMOND POWER SPECIALTY COMPANY, Movant, represented by RONALD S.
KOPP, ROETZEL & ANDRESS.

Dover Resources, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C..

Dravo Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C..

DURABLA, A.B. BOYD CO., AUBURN MANUFACTURING, CARBORUNDUM, GATKE,
BRYAN STEAM (A.B. BRYAN), INGERSOLL RAND CO., SKINNER ENGINE CO.,
CHEMSECO, NOLAND CO., PHOENIX SPECIALTY, MORRISON BROS.,
ZIMMERMAN, Movant, represented by GREGG L. SPYRIDON, SPYRIDON KOCH
& PALERMO LLC.

DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy
& Polito Co., L.P.A. & Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at GibboNS
P.C..

EG & G SEALOL, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A.; Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C.; and John
E. Herrick, Esq., at Motley Rice LLC.

ELLICOTT MACHINE CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy
& Polito Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons
P.C..

ELLIOTT/CARRIER, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A.; and Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C..

EXCELSIOR, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A. & Stephen J. Imbriglia, Esq., at Gibbons P.C..

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Movant, represented by JOAN F. BRAULT,
TYDINGS & ROSENBERG & KELLY WOOSTER.

FOXBORO CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito Co., L.P.A.
& Stephen J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

GENERAL ELECTRIC, Movant, represented by MARCY B. CROFT, FORMAN
PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY LLP & REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM
KRAMER.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Movant, represented by Richard D.
Schuster, Esq., at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.

GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Movant, represented by DANIEL J. RYAN, JR.,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, DAVID ANDERSON, COURT
OF APPEALS ARMED FORCES & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP.

GREAT LAKES CARBON, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito Co., L.P.A.
& Stephen J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

GREEN TWEED & COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A. & Stephen J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

GULF COAST MARINE SUPPLY CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A. & Stephen J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

GULF ENGINEERING CORP., Movant, represented by MICHAEL D. EAGEN,
DINSMORE & SHOHL.

HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito Co., L.P.A.
& Stephen J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Movant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN,
II, GALLAGHER SHARP,COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. --
cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com -- at GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C.
ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER
SHARP.

INDIAN HEAD INDUSTRIES, Movant, represented by DANIEL R.W.
RUSTMANN, BUTZEL, LONG &JAMES E. WYNNE, BUTZEL LONG.

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by WILLIAM J. KRUEGER, BAUGHMAN AND ASSOCIATES.

INTERCONTINENTAL CARRIER CORPORATION, OVERSEAS BULKTANK
CORPORATION, VALDEZ TANKSHIP CORPORATION, FIRST SHIPMOR
ASSOCIATES, INTERCONTINENTAL BULKTANK CORPORATION, VIVIAN TANKSHIP
CORPORATION,, Movant, represented by FAUSTINO MATTIONI, MATTIONI,
LTD..

J. P. STEVENS, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN
O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito Co., L.P.A. & Stephen
J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

JAMISON COLD DOOR, STORAGE, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy & Polito
Co., L.P.A. & Stephen J. Imbriglia, Gibbons P.C..

JOHN CRANE, INC., Movant, represented by GEORGE J. ANETAKIS,
FRANKOVITCH, ANETAKIS, COLANTONIO, JAMES R. STOKES, TOLLEY, FISHER
& VERWYS, P.C., STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP & EVAN J.
PALIK, MCMAHON DEGULIS.

JOHN ZINK CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN
O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN
J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Movant, represented
by JOHN D. ALDOCK, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP.

KEENE CORPORATION, Movant, represented by BRUCE A. WAGMAN,
SCHIFFHARDIN LLP, ELLIOT S. JUBELIRER, MORGENSTEIN AND JUBELIRER
& GITA F. ROTHSCHILD, MC CARTER & ENGLISH.

LYKES BROTHERS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., Movant, represented
by PAMELA ZARLINGO, Esq. -- Pam.Zarlingo@ThompsonHine.com -- at
THOMPSON HINE LLP.

MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS, CO-LEAD DEFENSE COUNSEL, Movant and Cross
Claimant, represented by PHILIP S. MC WEENY, OWENS ILLINOIS, INC.
& MICHAEL J. ZUKOWSKI, K&L GATES.

MARITIME ASBESTOS INJURY LITIGANTS, Movant, represented by LEONARD
C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME ASBESTOSIS LEGAL CLINIC, ALAN KELLMAN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM,DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY
LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN DAVID
HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC & V. BRIAN BEVON, MOTLEY RICE.

MARITIME OVERSEAS CORP., Movant, represented by FAUSTINO MATTIONI,
MATTIONI, LTD., JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES
PLL & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

MOORE PRODUCTS, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

MORTELL COMPANY, Movant, represented by LAWRENCE G. CETRULO,
CETRULO & CAPONE.

NORTON COMPANY, Movant, represented by LAWRENCE G. CETRULO,
CETRULO & CAPONE.

Olympic Steamship Company, Inc., Respondent, represented
by Katherine M. Steele, Esq., at Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC.

OWENS CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, Movant, represented
by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP.

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Movant, represented by BRUCE A. WAGMAN,
SCHIFFHARDIN LLP, ELLIOT S. JUBELIRER, MORGENSTEIN AND
JUBELIRER, ERIC J. KADISH, Esq., at MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY &
ANDERSON P.A. & JOHN CHARLES STEWART.

PERIPHERAL DEFENDANTS, Movant, represented by DAVID C LANDIN,
HUNTON & WILLIAMS.

PLFFS-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, Movant,
represented by JUDITH A. SCHORNACK-SMITH, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, LEONARD C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME ASBESTOSIS LEGAL
CLINIC, ROBERT E. SWICKLE, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM,
P.C.,DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN
E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC
& V. BRIAN BEVON, MOTLEY RICE.

PLFFS-TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST.
CROIX, Movant, represented by LEONARD C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME
ASBESTOSIS LEGAL CLINIC, JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC & V. BRIAN BEVON, MOTLEY RICE.

PLIBRICO COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO.,
L.P.A., STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

ROCKBESTOS, INC., Movant, represented by GARY D. HERMANN, AXILON
LAW GROUP PLLC.

ROPER INDUSTRIES, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

SB DECKING, INC., Movant, represented by THOMAS M. DIXON, CLARK
HILL, P.L.C..

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Movant, represented by LAWRENCE G.
CETRULO, CETRULO & CAPONE.

SPERRY RAND, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN
O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A. & STEPHEN
J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

TEXACO INC., Movant, represented by MARK E. FUHRMANN, TEN STAMFORD
FORUM, MATTHEW M. MENDOZA, CALFEE HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP & STEVEN
I. FRENKEL, CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD.

THE AMERICAN SHIP BUILDING COMPANY, Movant, represented by SCOTT
A. STICHTER, STICHTER, RIEDEL, BLAIN AND PROSSER, P.A..

Union Sulphur Co., Movant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch, Jr.,
Esq., at Swartz Campbell, LLC.

USX CORPORATION, Movant, represented by EILEEN M. JOYCE, BAUGHMAN
& JOYCE LLC, JAMES A. BYRNE, MCMAHON DEGULIS, LLP, WILLIAM J.
KRUEGER, BAUGHMAN AND ASSOCIATES &MATTHEW M. MENDOZA, CALFEE
HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP.

VELLUMOID, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

VIKING PUMP, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by KEVIN O. KADLEC, BONEZZI, SWITZER, MURPHY & POLITO CO., L.P.A.
& STEPHEN J. IMBRIGLIA, GIBBONS P.C..

WARREN PUMPS, INC., Movant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN, II,
GALLAGHER SHARP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Reargument Bid in "Lang" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, denied Defendant Crane Co. and defendant Roper Pump
Company's motions for reargument of or, in the alternative, leave
to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of the Court
entered May 2, 2014, in the asbestos-related case styled IN RE:
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to LARRY P.
LANG AND BARBARA LANG, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CRANE CO., ROPER
PUMP COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants, ET AL., Defendants, MOTION
NO. 480-14, DOCKET NO. CA 13-01415 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text
copy of the Court's Decision dated July 3, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/2f9MGDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Appeal in "Kestenbaum" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, dismissed the appeal in the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
KESTENBAUM, v. DUREZ CORPORATION, MOTION NO. M-2151 (N.Y. App.
Div.), and vacated the stay of trial granted by order of the Court
entered September 24, 2013.  A full-text copy of the Court's
Decision dated July 3, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/psZkH9
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Bid to Appeal in "Germain" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York issued an order dated July 1,
2014, dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in the asbestos-
related lawsuit styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to ROBERT GERMAIN, SR., Respondent, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, MOTION NO. 2014-601(N.Y.), upon the
ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally
determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/kVQzV9
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Awards Against Tishman, Crane Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation appeals from the
judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, awarding plaintiff
Ruby E. Konstantin damages.  Defendant Crane Co. also appeals from
the judgment of the same court awarding plaintiff Doris Kay
Dummitt damages, and from the order, denying Crane's posttrial
motion to set aside the verdict.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in an opinion dated July 3, 2014, affirmed the
judgment awarding plaintiff Ruby E. Konstantin damages, and the
judgment of the same court awarding plaintiff Doris Kay Dummitt
damages.  The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the
order which denied Crane's posttrial motion to set aside the
verdict.

The cases are IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
RUBY E. KONSTANTIN, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, 630 THIRD AVENUE
ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Defendants, TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant; and DORIS KAY DUMMITT, ETC., Plaintiff-
Respondent, A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO.,
Defendant-Appellant; 190196/10, 190134/10, 11500 (N.Y. App. Div.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SxIql6from Leagle.com.

E. Leo Milonas, Esq. -- eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- David G.
Keyko, Esq. -- david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com -- and Anne C.
Lefever, Esq. -- anne.lefever@pillsburylaw.com -- at Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, in New York; and John M. Nonna, Esq. --
jnonna@pattonboggs.com -- Larry P. Schiffer, Esq. --
lschiffer@pattonboggs.com -- and Kate S. Woodall, Esq. --
kwoodall@pattonboggs.com -- at Patton Boggs LLP, in New York, for
Tishman Liquidating Corporation, appellant.

Michael J. Ross, Esq. -- michael.ross@klgates.com -- Eric R.I.
Cottle, Esq. -- eric.cottle@klgates.com -- and Angela DiGiglio,
Esq. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- at K & L Gates LLP, in New
York, for Crane Co., appellant.

Seth A. Dymond, Esq., at Belluck & Fox, LLP, in New York, for
respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Quash Subpoena in "Carmody" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
On the ground that plaintiffs Patrick and Nora Carmody have
already provided defendant DAP, Inc. with their proof of claim
documentation, the plaintiffs move to quash a March 12, 2014
subpoena duces tecum served by DAP on non-party Manville Personal
Injury Settlement Trust which seeks discovery and inspection of
documents filed by plaintiffs in support of their claim that Mr.
Carmody was exposed to asbestos from Johns-Manville Corporation
products.  In the alternative the plaintiffs request that the
court conduct an in camera inspection of any subpoenaed documents
to prevent the disclosure of privileged and/or confidential
information.  In opposition DAP contends that the Manville Trust
is in possession of relevant documentation which plaintiffs have
not already produced to it, and which would have been necessary
for plaintiffs to have produced to the Manville Trust in order to
receive a settlement offer therefrom.

In a decision dated July 10, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of
the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiffs' motion
to quash the Subpoena only to the extent that the court will
examine the subpoenaed documents in camera.  Otherwise, the motion
is denied, Judge Heitler said.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
PATRICK CARMODY and NORA CARMODY, Plaintiffs, v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS,
INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190060/13, MOTION SEQ. NO.
001 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/K2Ps3afrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Adjoin Trial in Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Cleaver Brooks, Inc., moves by order to show for an
adjournment of the joint trial scheduled in the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to ANGEL LAMBERTY ROBERT D. FREEMAN FRANCIS
MARINO THEODORE PENDERGAST Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODS.
CO., et al., Defendant, DOCKET NO. 100988-2004, NO. 100867-2004.,
116830-2003, 104850-2004, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).  The
Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Judge George J. Silver of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated July 3, 2014 -- a full-text copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/OWbwlnfrom Leagle.com -- denied CB's
order to show cause and the plaintiffs' cross-motion, and directed
the parties to appear for a pre-trial conference to schedule a
final trial date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 13 Cos. Given Summary Judgment in "Miller" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge W. Earl Britt of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued two
orders in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned
JANE E. MILLER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert
Wesley Miller, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA
MINING MANUFACTURING CO, et al., Defendants, NO. 5:12-CV-00620-BR
(E.D.N.C.).

In the first order, dated July 8, 2014 -- a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/1aBMdWfrom Leagle.com -- Judge
Britt dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against and
granted the summary judgment motions filed by Carlisle Industrial
Brake & Friction, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Caterpillar Inc.,
Dana Companies LLC, Goulds Pumps, Inc., ITT Corporation f/k/a ITT
Industries, Inc., FMC Corporation, McNally Industries, Inc. (sued
as McNally Industries, LLC), Pneumo Abex LLC, Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., Paccar, Inc., and Ingersoll Rand Company, after
holding that the Plaintiff has failed to come forward with
sufficient evidence that the decedent, Robert Wesley Miller, was
exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which any of the
movants is liable.

Reaching the same conclusion as the July 8 decision, Judge Britt
issued a second order, dated July 9, 2014 -- a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/jQWciDfrom Leagle.com --
dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against and
granting the summary judgment motion filed by defendant Borgwarner
Morse Tec, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Dismissing "Watson" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Paul Watson, Sr., and Brenda Watson appeal a trial
court's decision dismissing their complaint with prejudice.  In
2005, Paul and Brenda Watson filed suit against numerous
defendants, including defendants-appellees, Vanderbilt Minerals,
L.L.C., f.k.a. R.T. Vanderbilt Company and Union Carbide Company.
The complaint alleged that Paul sustained some form of disease or
disability associated with exposure to asbestos-containing
products that were present on his work sites and were manufactured
or distributed by the named defendants.  Brenda Watson alleged a
loss of consortium claim.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, in
an opinion dated July 3, 2014, affirmed the ruling, determining
that the trial court correctly determined that the appellants'
claims were time-barred and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.

The case is NATIONAL CITY BANK, EXECUTOR, ETC., PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLANTS, v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES, NO. 100178 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/0BX7zXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Screening for Irish Seamen Conducted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that the
Naval Service has said the vast majority of 116 people who may
have come in contact with potentially lethal asbestos have been
medically screened and it will shortly award a contract to experts
to carry out a fleet-wide survey for the substance.

A spokesman for the Naval Service said that all 55 Naval Service
personnel who had any potential contact with the substance had
been screened.

A further 54 civilian workers employed by the Department of
Defence have also been screened and just seven remain to be
checked.

The LE Ciara and LE Orla still remain out of action due to the
discovery of asbestos onboard some months ago.

An expert clean-up of both vessels got under way on May 28 and it
is thought they will remain in dry dock for another few weeks
until the operation is complete.

The alarm was raised after it was discovered that some asbestos
was being broken up on board during routine maintenance and that
it may also have been broken up in workshops at the Naval
Service's headquarters on Haulbowline Island.

Asbestos becomes dangerous if it is broken up, as dust can get
into people's lungs and cause serious illness or death.

It can take up to 40 years for the symptoms to appear. Both
PDForra, which represents enlisted men in the Naval Service, and
Siptu, which represents most of the civilian workers, have called
for continued medical checks to be carried out on all personnel
over the coming years.

The Naval Service spokesman said a fleet-wide survey will be
carried out for asbestos and a contract will be signed with an
expert company shortly.

Senior officers were caught off guard following the recent
asbestos discoveries because in 2000 they had been told by
consultants that all their vessels were asbestos-free.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro Not Removed for Months
----------------------------------------------------
The Journal reported that the poor track record of Local Irish
Authorities in aiding the Travelling Community proves that
Traveller organisations need to remain independent.  That's the
view of representatives from groups that gathered in Dublin,
calling on Environment Minister Phil Hogan to facilitate their
continuing independence.

Catherine Joyce, project coordinator of a local Traveller group in
Blanchardstown, said that the proposal to align the community
development work done by such groups with local government is not
in the best interests of people on the ground.

Joyce noted the "poor track record" of local authorities in
dealing with the needs of the Travelling community.  She cited one
incident last year where it took over four months for asbestos
that was dumped at a halting site at Cappagh Field in Finglas to
be moved.

"It took them forever to get it moved, despite the well-known
dangers in relation to asbestos," Joyce said, adding she believed
it was dumped by an individual or business who had recently
carried out renovations on their property.

Joyce stressed that the National Traveller Partnership, a
collective that represents a number of organisations, should
continue to oversee national funding.

"We want to see the current situation whereby the Department
provides funding to the NTP to disburse amongst the local projects
continue. This measure would demonstrate governments commitment to
safeguarding Travellers human rights and the protection of local
Traveller independent structures," Joyce said.

The Traveller community represents .6% of the population. Life
expectancy within the group is considerably shorter while suicide
rates are seven higher than those in the settled community. Joyce
noted that unemployment and education issues also impact
Travellers to a greater extent.

Budget cutbacks

In 2008, Traveller programmes throughout Ireland received
EUR259,000 from the Local Community Development Programme. This
figure dropped to EUR94,200 last year.

In recent years, the community's education funding has been cut by
86.6%, their accommodation budget by 85% and health budget by
5.4%. Joyce said it was unfair that Travellers were being
disproportionately targeted by cutbacks.

"It absolutely would not be accepted in any other sector of
society," she noted.

Joyce went on to describe such groups as "a valuable asset to the
State".  She said she was "not so confident" about Hogan taking on
board what they said but added: "I do hope that whatever Minister
takes over . . . will take it into serious consideration."

Fianna Fail's Eamon O Cuiv said that Traveller groups should make
sure that Labour knows further cutbacks to the community are "a
red line issue" ahead of negotiations on the Programme for
Government with Fine Gael once the party's new leader is elected
this week.

Labour TD Robert Dowds said he could not stay for the entire press
conference but would study the information packs provided in
detail.

In a letter given to Minister Hogan, the NTP notes how "many local
authorities have consistently failed to deliver" in areas such as
Traveller accommodation and health.

Martin Collins, NTP Chairperson, noted that "the retention of the
local Traveller organisation affords the State and Traveller
community an independent voice to represent the interests and
needs of the community while at the same time informing policy
development and opportunity for collaborative working at a local
levels on issues affecting the community in urban and rural
settings".

"Up until now, the NTP received funding from the Department of
Environment, Community and Local Government to disburse to the 14
local Traveller projects. These organisations are efficient and
effective in ensuring that this funding is directed solely at the
Traveller community at local level."

'Astonishing'

Michael Taft, research officer with Unite trade union, urged the
government to help community development by putting a halt to the
proposals to outsource community development and to launch "an
authentic inclusive and evidence-based assessment of the needs of
the Traveller community".

"We need a strong, independent, innovative and dynamic Traveller
infrastructure."

Taft said it was "astonishing" that the government were moving
forward with aligning the work of Traveller groups with local
authorities despite "no evidence of shortcomings in the current
system".  He added that cuts to the community would have "a
negative impact on growth".

Joyce added that the most effective way of achieving positive
outcomes for the Traveller community in Irish society is by
"resourcing Traveller activity and the active participation of the
Traveller community themselves, while continuing to work closely
with local authorities to ensure that Travellers benefit from
wider local development initiatives, especially those that involve
mainstream statutory agencies".

Roma children

Joyce welcomed the report due to be published by Children's
Ombudsman Emily Logan into the removal of two Roma children from
their families in Dublin and Westmeath last year.  She said that
those affected were "particularly vulnerable".  I think the Roma
children are probably in a situation similar to ourselves: they're
a very vulnerable and excluded group of people.  Joyce added that
gardai and social workers have to take into consideration the
repercussions of their actions when making a decision.

"Regardless of how well-meaning it is at the time, those decisions
are going to have an impact on the lives of the individuals
involved, on the community involved and and on civil society."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Members of Claims Group Can Sue Member
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that
former members of a group designed to resolve asbestos-related
personal injury claims are permitted to raise breach of contract
claims against a bankrupt company for its alleged failure to pay
contractually obligated settlements and expenses exceeding $250
million.

Circuit Judge Michael Fisher delivered the opinion on June 17.
Circuit Judge Anthony J. Scirica and Judge Robert D. Mariani of
the US. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
concurred.

United States Gypsum Company and Quigley Company filed the appeal
as former members of the Center for Claims Resolution in an effort
to receive compensation for the additional payments they were
required to make to cover for G.I. Holdings' failure to maintain
its obligations.

The appeals court ruled in favor of the former members, vacating
the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's
order granting summary judgment in GI Holdings' favor. It added
that the case should be remanded back to the bankruptcy court for
further proceeding.

In response to a growing number of asbestos-related personal
injury claims in the 1980s, a group of manufacturers of asbestos
and asbestos-containing products joined together to form the
Center for Claims Resolution in order to "more effectively" defend
the manufacturers in lawsuits.

The center was formed as a non-profit, non-stock Delaware
corporation in September 1988 and was tasked with administering
and arranging "for the evaluation, settlement, payment and defense
of asbestos related bodily injury claims," Fisher wrote.

The members of the center negotiated and formed the Producer
Agreement Concerning Center for Claims Resolution, establishing
the center's purpose, defining the mechanics of the center and the
obligations of the members.

According to the agreement, the members "believe it is important
to establish an organization that will, on behalf of all
participating producers, resolve meritorious asbestos-related
claims in a fair and expeditious manner and, where necessary,
defend asbestos-related claims efficiently and economically."

A five-person Board of Directors governs the center.

Membership with the center may be terminated by a member's written
notice, bankruptcy or by resolution of the board. However, despite
termination, former members "continue to have and to honor all of
the obligations incurred by it [under the Producer Agreement] or
on its behalf as a member prior to the effective date of its
membership termination," the agreement states.

After an asbestos-related case is settled or resolved on behalf of
the members, the center then bills and collects each member's
allocated share of liability payments and expenses based on a
formula in the agreement.

If a member fails to pay its share of liability in a timely
manner, the board may enforce payment of the obligations.

Quigley, US Gypsum and the predecessor-in-interest of GI Holdings
were among the roughly 20 manufacturers to sign the agreement.

GI Holdings is the successor-in-interest to GAF Corporation. Its
membership with the center was terminated in January 2000 when the
board found that it had breached the agreement by failing to pay
its share of settlements and expenses.

Following termination, the center informed GI Holdings that it
owed roughly $250 million and enforced payment of the settlements
and expenses. However, that enforcement was stayed when GI
Holdings filed for bankruptcy in January 2001, causing the center
to collect its share in the fees by seeking additional payments
from the remaining members.

Quigley withdrew its membership in February 2001, and US Gypsum
filed for bankruptcy in June 2001.  They both alleged they were
obligated to make additional payments to the center to satisfy GI
Holding's failure to pay.

During GI Holdings' bankruptcy proceeding, the court gave parties
until Oct. 15, 2008, to submit all proofs of claim against any
interest in the debtor.

The center filed a proof of claim on Oct. 9, 2008, alleging GI
Holdings was liable for a total of $254.7 million for breaching
the agreement.  As part of that debt, the center claimed it paid
out $29.5 million to asbestos claimants on behalf of GI Holdings
before it stopped paying out the manufacturer's share of
settlements.

Both Quigley and US Gypsum filed proof of claim forms seeking to
recover what they paid to cover GI Holdings' obligations.  Only US
Gypsum's additional payments were mentioned in the opinion. It
paid approximately $6.3 million to satisfy the unpaid obligations.

The center and GI Holdings settled its claim seeking $254.7
million for a cash payment of $9.9 million.  Then, in September
2009, GI Holdings moved for approval of the settlement agreement
in the bankruptcy court.

US Gypsum and Quigley objected to the settlement and sought
clarification that it would not affect or release their own claims
against the bankrupt company. The bankruptcy court made the
clarification to the order and approved the settlement agreement.

However, the bankruptcy court later approved the Eighth Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization in November 2009, where GI Holdings
asserted that US Gypsum's and Quigley's claims were derivative of
the center's settled claim, and should therefore be considered
settled.

GI Holdings then filed for summary judgment on the former members'
claims in July 2010, which was granted in August 2012.

"The bankruptcy court concluded that the Center was authorized to
resolve GI's breach by nonpayment," Fisher explained, "and the
producer agreement barred the former members from pursuing claims,
including for breach of contract, against GI."

US Gypsum and Quigley appealed to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, where Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh
affirmed the summary judgment in June 2013. He held that the
"language reserving rights of action for breach to the members did
not create a right to bring breach of contract claims."

US Gypsum and Quigley both appealed the decision, asserting that
the district court erred when it concluded that the agreement bars
members from pursuing a breach of contract claim against GI
Holdings and that their claims are independent from the Center's
claim.

Addressing the breach of contract issue introduced by the former
members, Fisher wrote that a meaning from a certain portion of an
agreement does not control the meaning of the entire agreement.

Citing Section X, titled "Third-Party Rights," of the agreement,
the opinion states that signatories reserve the right to bring
action for breach of the agreement.

He explained that once the former members were required to make
additional payments to cover GI Holding's shortfall, they suffered
damages appropriate for a breach of contract lawsuit.

"[B]ecause the producer agreement does clearly provide for such a
suit," Fisher wrote, "we should not lightly overlook Section X as
it is the most relevant provision to the issue at hand."

Relying upon the title of Section X, GI Holdings argued that it
bars unnamed parties from filing claims.

The appeals court disagreed, stating, "Unless the language of
Section X regarding breach of contact actions is irreconcilably
inconsistent with the producer agreement's purpose, other
provisions, or overall contractual scheme, we should give effect
to the 'clear and unambiguous' language reserving the former
members' right to bring a breach of contract action against GI."

Fisher added that the purpose of the agreement is to create a
constructive relationship between the members to resolve cross and
counter-claims that they may have against each other in asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits.

However, he explained that if the agreement sought to avoid all
litigation -- as the bankruptcy and district courts concluded --
then the agreement would have referred to any claims rather than
any cross or counter claims.

Taking the former members' damages into consideration, Fisher
wrote that as soon as US Gypsum and Quigley had to make additional
payments, the center's harm was remedied and damages were
transferred to the members.

"Before the former members were required to cover the shortfall,
the harm GI caused fell upon the Center, as the Center was unable
to collect payments and therefore fulfill its settlement
obligations to asbestos plaintiffs," he wrote.

Specifically, the agreement allows the center to enforce payments
before members are required to cover the settlements and expenses,
but members are permitted to bring a breach of contract lawsuit
after they have been forced to satisfy the obligations.

Addressing GI Holdings' argument that the former members' claims
are derivatives of the center's claim, Fisher wrote that
generally, only the corporation may bring a suit when the cause of
action belongs to that corporation. But the court sees no reason
why the derivative inquiry should apply here, it stated.

Fisher added that the members' claims became separate when they
were forced to pay beyond what was contractually required.

"Once the former members were required to make additional payments
to cover the shortfall in amounts due to asbestos plaintiffs
caused by GI's nonpayment, the former members suffered damages and
had a straightforward breach of contract claim," Fisher wrote.

Additionally, the bankruptcy court held that allowing US Gypsum
and Quigley to bring their breach of contract suits would result
in a double recovery against GI Holdings.

The appeals court disagreed, stating that the settlement only
covers GI Holdings' liability to the Center and its current
members for its unpaid obligations.

Because US Gypsum and Quigley are former members at the time of
the settlement, they are not included.

"The Center's recovery for its own claims and claims it brought on
behalf of present members of the Center have no bearing on the
former members' claims, particularly when they were explicitly
excluded from the settlement agreement between the Center and GI,"
Fisher wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Hopes to End Fibro Dumping
-------------------------------------------------
Adam Wright, writing for South Coast Register, reported that
disposing of asbestos will be cheaper and easier in the
Shoalhaven, New South Wales, as part of a 12-month trial that
started on July 1.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) was slated to begin
a trial of the Householders' Asbestos Disposal Scheme in 24
councils including Shoalhaven.  During the trial Shoalhaven
residents can dispose of small amounts of wrapped bonded asbestos
for $102 per tonne, rather than the normal charge of $290 per
tonne.

Asbestos inspector and auditor Neil Wallace from Asbestos
Reporting South Coast said most people would be surprised at how
many Shoalhaven residents work with asbestos as if it was
harmless.

Mr Wallace thought people would be also be shocked at how often
asbestos was dumped in the bush.

"People who dump this stuff in the bush are exposing themselves
and possibly their loved ones to asbestos," he said.

"This reduction in the cost to dump it properly will be a plus."

Shoalhaven Mayor Joanna Gash was pleased Shoalhaven was chosen to
participate in the pilot scheme.

"The successful councils had been selected by an independent
review panel based on the merit of their applications," she said.

"Results of the pilot program will be independently analysed to
inform the NSW government on the best approach to reduce the
dumping of asbestos waste."

The limit for an individual under the trial will be five tonnes
and is based on the average house in Western Sydney built in the
1950s having four tonnes of asbestos.

The West Nowra and Ulladulla recycling and waste depots will
participate in the scheme.

To be eligible, Shoalhaven residents must register with council
prior to proceeding to the landfill.  A coupon will be issued and
the discount automatically applied.  The scheme will finish on
June 30, 2015 and is available to Shoalhaven householders only.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chepstow Woman Died Due to Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
South Wales Argus reported that an 80-year-old died as a result of
a domestic-acquired industrial disease normally caused by an
exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard.

Norma Kidman from Chepstow, England, died from mesothelioma on
September 27, 2013.

In a statement read out to Gwent Coroner's Court in Newport, Mrs
Kidman's husband John Kidman said he had "no idea" how his wife
contracted mesothelioma. The statement read: "Prior to our
marriage in 1951, my wife had been an apprentice hairdresser, but
she gave up work to look after our children. She returned to
employment in 1961 as a shop worker and an office clerk."

Gwent Coroner David Bowen heard that in 1969, Mr Kidman was posted
to Burma and various other Army barracks and his family went with
him.  Mr Kidman's statement added: "My wife enjoyed good health in
the majority of her life, but during the summer of 2013 she
developed a dry cough and was admitted to the Royal Gwent
Hospital. Doctors said she was suffering from a possible
mesothelioma, I have no idea how she contracted that condition."

Mr Bowen recorded a verdict of domestic-acquired industrial
disease and said that it was "unnecessary" for him to decide how
Mrs Kidman came into contact with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Says Suit v. Ferro Not Barred by WCA
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois appellate court
has reversed the dismissal of asbestos claims against Ferro
Engineering, ruling that the plaintiffs' suit is not precluded by
the state's Workers' Compensation Act, despite being time-barred
under the Act's 25-year statute of repose.

In the June 27 opinion, the Illinois 1st District Court of Appeal,
5th Division, wrote that its finding was confined to the
underlying case's specific fact pattern, "in which an injured
employee's potential claim under the Act is time-barred before he
ever learns of it, thus necessarily depriving him of any potential
for compensation under the Act."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra MP Asks to Meet PM on Mr. Fluffy
----------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Thomson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been asked to step in to
deal with an asbestos crisis in Canberra that has been likened to
a natural disaster.  The push for the federal government to take
responsibility for the territory's Mr Fluffy asbestos legacy has
reached the highest level of political office after Canberra MP
Gai Brodtmann asked Mr Abbott to meet with her and a victim.

Other requests for meetings on the issue have been sent to two
other Coalition ministers -- Senator Eric Abetz, who is
responsible for the  Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and
Health Minister Peter Dutton -- as well as Assistant Regional
Development Minister Jamie Briggs.

Mr Briggs has confirmed a meeting and Ms Brodtmann was awaiting
responses from the others.

"The ACT government and residents of Mr Fluffy homes have likened
the Mr Fluffy crisis to a natural disaster," Ms Brodtmann said.

"We're talking about over one thousand Canberra families facing
the potential loss of their most significant investment, their
home, as well as substantial health concerns.

"We need strong national leadership on this issue, and we need a
whole of government approach. That's why the first meeting request
I made was with the Prime Minister."

The founder of the Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group,
Brianna Heseltine, will be at any of the meetings which go ahead
to give a first-hand account of the asbestos legacy.

Deadly Mr Fluffy asbestos infiltrates homes like "sand through an
hourglass", according to experts, and could still be present even
it could not be seen by the naked eye. There have been reports of
microscopic fibres remaining stuck to timber and bricks even after
cleaning.

The loose-fill amosite asbestos was spread through more than 70
ACT suburbs in the 1970s.

Ms Brodtmann said the government needed to understand the full
extent of the Mr Fluffy legacy so it could work with the ACT
government to find solutions for all Mr Fluffy home owners and
residents.

The ACT government has released new asbestos guidelines for the
real estate sector, clarifying what needs to be disclosed when
homes containing residual Mr Fluffy loose-fill insulation are sold
or leased.

The four-page document for agency principals, agents and property
managers underlines the responsibilities the industry has under
law in relation to asbestos in residential properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Remands Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Washington federal court
has remanded an asbestos action, rejecting the defendants'
position that the court should ignore the citizenship of the
defendants named in the wrongful death suit, but not included in
the original personal injury action.

In the June 30 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington held that several considerations weighed in
favor of finding that a wrongful death suit was not barred because
the personal injury statute of limitations ran prior to the
decedent's death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumping Poses Problem in Lake Macquarie
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the council in Lake Macquarie, Australia,
says it will consider waiving waste levies and providing financial
incentives for asbestos to be legally disposed of, if a state
government trial is successful.

The Council says illegal dumping of the toxic substance by home
renovators is a widespread problem.

24 NSW councils have begun trialling free dumping fees for up to
five tonnes of wrapped, bonded asbestos and a $50 per tonne
incentive for bringing it to nominated landfill sites.

No Hunter councils are in the year long trial.

Council sustainability manager Symon Walpole says Lake Macquarie
will be a keen observer.

"Lake Macquarie Council has got a significant problem with the
dumping of asbestos," he said.

"It's a fairly widespread problem across the state, but it's
certainly one that we're dealing with.

"Over the last year or so we've removed 400 tonnes of asbestos
that's been illegally dumped on community land and we've had to
bear the cost of disposing of that legally and lawfully."

Mr Walpole says the Council would consider implementing similar
incentives if the trial being undertaken in parts of the state is
successful.

"We'd be looking at all of those options, including the financial
ones," he said.

"And also really encouraging people to try and get their asbestos
removed lawfully and using licensed contractors for asbestos
removal and making sure when they do have that asbestos removed,
that they're seeing the waste receipts and the licences."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $90.5MM Awarded to Manville Victims' Families
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Epstein, writing for The Star-Ledger, reported that a judge in
New Brunswick has awarded 11 families from Manville more than $90
million for their pain and suffering caused by losing loved ones
to an asbestos-related cancer.

After a week of hearings, Superior Court Judge Ana Viscomi issued
her ruling, awarding the families $90.5 million, to be paid by
Anova Holding, AG, and Becon, AG, the companies that supplied
asbestos to Johns Manville from the 1950's into the 1980's,
according to attorney Lea Kagan with Levy Konigsberg, one of two
law firms that represented the families. The other was Szaferman
Lakind.

Kagan said the lawsuits stem from the mesolthelioma-related deaths
of 11 people, including a mother and daughter. Mesothelioma is an
aggressive cancer of the lungs that is linked to asbestos
exposure.  She said the lawsuits were filed between 2008 and 2011,
but the legal process lasted as long as it did because the two
defendant companies are foreign. Both are based in Switzerland.

Kagan said neither Anova nor Becon appeared or answered the
complaints filed against them. She said the families sought and
obtained default judgments against the companies, leading to
hearings in New Brunswick to determine damages.

Kagan said the judge rendered her decision after hearing testimony
from family members and others, beginning June 20.

"Our clients are grateful that their call for justice for their
loved ones was answered," the attorney said.

The awards ranged from $4 million for the late Virginia Stansley,
who died in 2009 at age 81, to $15 million for John Ketchum, whose
wife, Deborah Ann died in November 2009, at 49 years old.

Several of the victims, including Ketchum, Stansley, her daughter,
Patricia Lindsay, 58, Donald Greene, 70, Sharon Durlester, 54, and
Louise Upshaw, 63, did not work at Johns Manville, but family
members -- with whom they lived -- did. The family members brought
asbestos into the homes on their clothing.

Other victims such as Peter Danysh, 64, Francis DiTolvo, 63, Rose
Koshinsky, 78, Francis Swinick, 64, and Paul Troth, 76, all worked
at Johns Manville.

Anova and Becon are successor companies to the Eternit group,
which mined asbestos in South Africa and sold it throughout the
world, including to the Johns Manville Company, the nationally-
known maker of insulation that included asbestos. Johns Manville
was headquartered in Somerset County at one time.

Asbestos was used in everything from brake linings to ceiling
tiles because of its fireproofing and insulating capabilities, but
medical studies linked exposure to asbestos to lung disease and
mesothelioma in the 1960s. Lawsuits quickly followed.

For many years, New Jersey was the hub of asbestos litigation. By
1982, with more than 16,000 lawsuits pending against Johns
Manville, the Manville company filed for bankruptcy protection.

Thousands of other companies that once sold or distributed
asbestos products also have been named in lawsuits in New Jersey
and around the country.

Most, if not all, of the asbestos cases in New Jersey are heard in
Middlesex County, one of three counties that handle mass tort- or
class action-type lawsuits.

In 2005, a jury in Middlesex County awarded a Hawthorne man, who
was dying of mesothelioma at the time, and his wife $10 million.
The victim, William Rhodes, was a boiler repairman and used parts
insulated with asbestos to repair boilers, according to testimony
during the lawsuit's week-long trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Highlights Improved Fibro Management
------------------------------------------------------------
H&V News reported that the results of the United Kingdom's Health
and Safety Executive's asbestos in schools inspection initiative
for 2013/14 have been published.  This included a selection of 153
non-local authority schools, which were inspected between April
last year and January 2014, including independent, voluntary aided
and foundation schools, free schools and academies.

Written advice from HSE was sent to 44 of those surveyed, with a
further 20 (13%) issued with improvement notices to upgrade
management of asbestos practices.

The HSE emphasised that it did not consider staff or pupils to be
at significant risk of exposure, but stated staff training and
written management plans are vital elements of the required
control measures.  It also reported that compliance with the
Control of Asbestos Regulations in England, Scotland and Wales
showed an overall improvement compared with the results of a
similar survey and inspection programme of 164 schools outside
local authority control in 2010/11, where 41 improvement notices
were served on 28 schools.

The majority of the schools in the HSE's most recent survey were
found to require no further action, or were provided with simple
advice.

HSE head of public services sector Geoff Cox, said: "Over the last
few years there has been a lot of work by stakeholders across the
school sector to raise awareness of the duty to manage asbestos.
It is really encouraging to see that awareness of the requirements
has increased since our previous inspection initiative.

"That said, schools should not be under any illusion -- managing
asbestos requires ongoing attention. Schools now have access to a
wealth of guidance setting out clear and straightforward steps to
achieve and maintain compliance.

"Where duty holders fall below acceptable standards, HSE has
taken, and will continue to take, enforcement action"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Violations in Netherlands Doubled
--------------------------------------------------------
Maxime Zech, writing for NLTimes.com, reported that last year,
asbestos treatment companies were fined for violating rules twice
as many times as in 2012. The inspection conducted by Ministerie
van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, formerly the labour
inspection, discovered 433 cases of violation in 2013. This was
just over 200 in the previous year.

The SZW will not reveal in detail which companies were responsible
for the violations, but do give an example of the worst violation
that inspectors have come across: children helping in the removal
of asbestos. This puts the childrens' health in danger, as
ingesting asbestos particles is dangerous.

Illegally dumping asbestos in nature is also stated as a frequent
violation. The substance is highly toxic to nature, and the
particles can be breathed in by people who come into contact with
the abandoned asbestos.

The inspection says that, despite the increase in fines, the
entire situation is improving with companies being more willing to
report malpractice, and controlling permits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Stevenston Victim to Receive Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald reported that lawyers representing
the family of a man from Stevenston, Scotland, who died of
mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during his career as
an instrument mechanic have welcomed a landmark decision which
both ensures his loved ones get the justice they deserve and will
be important in helping other families gain vital support in the
future.

James Gallagher died aged 70 terminal cancer which his family
claimed was linked to his time working with numerous previous
employers throughout Scotland.

James Gallagher, from Stevenston, Ayrshire, died aged 70 in
Crosshouse Hospital from terminal cancer, which his family claimed
was linked to his time working with numerous previous employers
throughout Scotland.

Now, a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh has ruled that
the family should receive substantial damages regarding the death
of their loved one, in line with a ruling made in another recent
case which was not disease-related.

Asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell Scotland, who
represent Mr Gallagher's family, have said the decision is an
important step towards further developing the law in this area and
ensuring that families are able to gain access to vital support
which will help them come to terms with losing loved ones.

This is the first judgment dealing with loss of society in disease
cases, in Scotland, where awards made by the court have been at
this level and represents a substantial increase on awards
previously made for family members in such cases.

Elaine Russell, the partner at Irwin Mitchell Scotland who
represents the family, said: "Mr Gallagher was a remarkable man
and his family, like so many we act for in cases related to
asbestos-related disease, were devastated by his unexpected
illness and death.

"We are delighted with this judgment which represents justice for
the family of the late Mr Gallagher. Furthermore, the detail of
Lord Uist's judgment, including the reasons why the case of McGee
could be applied to this scenario and the importance of leading
evidence in relation to family relationships, further develops the
law in relation to fatal cases in Scotland."

The case of Gallagher & Others v S C Cheadle Hume was heard at the
Court Of Session after the defenders' lawyers argued that the
family were entitled to damages significantly lower than
anticipated.

However, in response, Irwin Mitchell Scotland argued that the case
should be considered in line with the recent ruling in the case of
McGee, which presiding judge Lord Uist agreed with on several
grounds.

Elaine explained: "In the judgment, it was outlined that there was
no reason to distinguish between the circumstances of this case
and those of McGee, so the final decision on the award that the
family of Mr Gallagher are entitled to, for distress, anxiety,
grief and sorrow, was based along those lines.

"This is a very important judgment which clarifies and provides
guidance regarding the level of award that families should receive
when a loved one passes away as a result of an asbestos-related
disease."

James Gallagher's widow, Margaret Ann Gallagher, 70, from
Stevenston, said: "We're so very relieved that the legal battle in
relation to getting justice for my husband's death has come to an
end and want to now look to the future after a difficult four
years.

"We hope that our case and the decision in it will prove to be an
important one which ensures other families who face the heartache
of losing a loved one to an asbestos-related disease can get the
justice they deserve.

"While no amount of money will ever bring my husband back, if any
good can come from this it will be that others will not face the
same issues that we have."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Gov't to Provide Assistance to Homeowners
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the Australian Government will provide up
to $10,000 in financial assistance to Canberra families forced out
of their homes as a result of contamination by Mr Fluffy asbestos.

The Mr Fluffy insulation company installed loose-fill asbestos in
the roof spaces of more than 1,000 homes across the ACT during the
1960s and 1970s.  A Commonwealth-funded clean-up program began in
the 1980s, however some cleared homes have since been found to
contain potentially deadly remnant fibres.

The Government announced it would pay each of those families up to
$10,000, plus an additional $2,000 for each dependant child, to
cover the costs of emergency accommodation and immediate
remediation work.

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said there were currently about 10
families who could not return to their homes.  But she said that
number could change, and the final figure for assistance for
people forced out of their homes could reach hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

Marcus Thompson, his wife Elisa and his family have been living in
a hotel for six weeks after being told their home in Canberra's
west was no longer safe to live in.  Potentially deadly Mr Fluffy
asbestos fibres were found in their cupboards, in the heating
system, in the roof and under the floor.  While they welcomed the
assistance package, Ms Thompson said, for their family, it did not
go far enough.

"We're in the position where we've got six weeks of hotel bills to
pay, we're trying to secure a rental property because we cannot
return to our home and we're still paying a mortgage," she said.

Mr Thompson said the $10,000 assistance package might only cover
the cost of his family's hotel bill.

"We can't expect everything to be given to us and I understand
that," he said.

"We really need the Commonwealth to come to the party, that's the
only way we're going to be able to move forward and get people
some normalcy back in their lives.

"They did the remediation program, which has clearly failed. It's
all of Australia's problem because it's affecting more than just
the Canberra region."

Ms Thompson said many of their clothes and soft furnishings had to
be destroyed to ensure the fibres were not carried outside the
house.

"With no possessions really to speak of and not knowing what comes
from one day to the next it's been extraordinarily taxing," she
said.

Mr Thompson said even though his family lived in their house for
six years, he has chosen not to go back after the traces of
asbestos were found.

"I couldn't look my kids in the face in 30 years' time if, heaven
forbid, they developed an asbestos-related disease after taking
them back in there," he said.

Also included in the assistance package for displaced families was
$1,000 for the replacement of contaminated clothes that have been
destroyed, and money for counselling and support services.  The
Government said it would also pay for asbestos assessments to be
done on Mr Fluffy homes and defer rates for homeowners who have
been displaced.

"We will be arranging for the bulk assessment of former Mr Fluffy
homes," Ms Gallagher said.

"We will be reimbursing those who have undertaken asbestos
assessments since February."

She said there was no time limit on assessments and they would be
purchased by the Government in a similar way to housing block
clearances after the 2003 Canberra bushfires.

Ms Gallagher said she was looking forward to, together with ACT
Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson, meeting with Federal Minister for
Regional Development Jamie Briggs about the Commonwealth's role in
the matter.

"Each house and each family circumstance is different," she said.

"These families have had their lives turned upside down
emotionally and financially and often with little notice. They
have had to find alternative accommodation at short notice and
replace clothes and other daily essentials."

Just under 400 people have registered with the Government-run
Asbestos Response Taskforce.

Ms Gallagher said more decisions would be reached on whether to
demolish affected homes in future.  She will attend a meeting with
Mr Fluffy victims and said long-term issues around the loss of
house value would be discussed.

Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson said it was important the issue
has bipartisan support.

"I think it's important that we work together, both to provide the
financial relief in the short-term, but also working cooperatively
to go to the Federal Government and saying that they need to come
to the table and provide some longer term remediation of these Mr
Fluffy homes," he said.

The announcement was also welcomed by Brianna Heseltine from the
Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group.  She said the free
asbestos assessments of Mr Fluffy homes meant homeowners could now
have certainty and be informed.

"We're absolutely delighted to see the Chief Minister come on
board with this package," she said.

"On a practical level it will give them money for accommodation,
money for food, for toys for their children, to replace mattresses
they've had to throw out.

"But I think we need to realise we've been in a sprint, but we
need to move into a marathon pace."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver's Bid for Judgment Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a New York judge has denied an air compressor manufacture's
motion for summary judgment in an electrician's asbestos lawsuit,
finding that the plaintiff presented appropriate triable issues of
fact regarding his alleged exposure.

In her June 4 opinion, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler concluded that
plaintiff John W. Adler, joined by his wife Elaine Adler,
presented enough evidence showing he could have been exposed to
asbestos from defendant Gardner Denver's air compressors while
aboard a Navy vessel, causing him to develop mesothelioma.

Adler filed his asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on Sept.
18, 2012, and added Gardner Denver as a defendant on Oct. 17,
2012.  He provided depositions in October and November 2012 and
again in January 2013, testifying that he was exposed to asbestos
while working as an electrician from the late 1950s until the
early 1970s.

During that time, Adler served as an electrician's mate aboard the
USS Prevail, a converted US Navy mine sweeper, from March 1957
through June 1960.

As part of his job responsibilities, Adler stood watch in each of
the vessel's two engine rooms during the conversion process. He
alleged his asbestos exposure arose from civilian shipyard
employees' work with asbestos-containing insulation encasing
engine room equipment in his presence.

Adler added that the civilians were working on engines, boilers,
evaporators and switchboards, creating dust and dirt clouds.  He
explained that the employees would use air compressors to start
the main engines. Then maintenance work and overhaul work would be
done on the air compressors. Located in the engine room was also
an accumulator tank associated with the air compressors, which
Adler claimed was covered in asbestos.

During a deposition, Adler said everything would have been running
while he was present in the engine room, meaning everything
covered in asbestos would have been vibrating regularly.

However, he did not identify Gardner Denver products specifically
as the source of his exposure.

As a result of Adler's failure to rely on the defendant's products
in his depositions, Gardner Denver submitted two partially
executed No Opposition Summary Judgment motions to the plaintiffs'
counsel for signature.

In response, plaintiffs' counsel advised it would not execute the
NOSJM's in light of a report from its expert, Arnold Moore, who
stated that the air compressors aboard the Prevail were
manufactured by Gardner Denver.

As a result, Gardner Denver filed a motion for summary judgment to
Heitler on Feb. 19 seeking dismissal of Adler's complaint and
cross-claims asserted against him. It alleged Adler failed to
produce any Navy records upon which Moore relied on when forming
his opinions, thus failing to show the plaintiff was exposed to
Gardner Denver products.

Adler later supplied those documents and indicated that the
vessel's air compressor units were manufactured by Gardner Denver,
including three motor-driven air compressors used for starting the
engine and servicing the ship.  However, the air compressors were
reportedly in good condition and were not open for inspection.

Gardner Denver argued it is not proper to assume Adler's asbestos
exposure from the defendant's products because he mentioned at one
point in his deposition that the air compressors were manufactured
by Fairbanks Morse.

Adler later testified that he did not know who manufactured the
asbestos-containing air compressors.

"Regardless, the documents make it abundantly clear that in 1956,
only one year before the relevant time period began, there were
Gardner Denver air compressors aboard the Prevail," Heitler
concluded. "There is no evidence to show that these Gardner Denver
air compressors were replaced either before or during Adler's
service."

Heitler added that Adler presented triable issues of fact
regarding whether he was exposed to asbestos from Gardner Denver
air compressors, and therefore denied summary judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Taken to Hospital Following Fire
-----------------------------------------------------
STV.com reported that a man has been taken to hospital after a
fire at a farm in Edinburgh, Scotland.  The blaze broke out at
Haughhead Farm in Balerno.

More than 18 firefighters tackled the fire, which was treated as a
chemical incident because there was asbestos in the roof of the
outbuilding and tanks of diesel inside.  A man was suffering from
smoke inhalation and had to be taken to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
for treatment.  It took crews around two hours to get the fire
under control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councilman Denies Knowledge of Fibro Presence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Johnson, writing for KMVT.com, reported that when it comes to
where to relocate city hall, Twin Falls, Idaho, Councilman Chris
Talkington said the city has not turned down any building. The
comments come on the heels of the person who owns the former Twin
Falls Clinic and Hospital building. Eric Watte of New Leaf
Properties appeared at the City Council meeting asking Councilman
Talkington to discuss comments made on a local radio talk show.
Talkington again appeared on KLIX Radio and said, "Any statement
that I made earlier about the asbestos in it was probably
referring to other buildings. I have no firsthand knowledge of
asbestos level: High, Low or nonexistent. There were other
buildings that we were looking at that we are as concerned about
and they are older buildings."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Feared as Demolition Grinds to a Halt
------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Stephens, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that an
asbestos removalist in Australia says a prime CBD development site
could be riddled with the cancer causing fibre.

River City Asbestos Removal was contracted to remove asbestos from
the George Street Law Courts site but director Ross Filmer said
constant site disruptions by union officials prevented his company
from declaring all areas safe.  Demolition works at the site, in
the heart of Brisbane's business precinct, halted abruptly in
June.  The contractor, Wacol-based P&K Demolitions, has gone into
liquidation, owing nearly $3.7 million to creditors.

Filmer alleged the powerful Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Energy Union had frequently disrupted works at the demolition
site, often resulting in works being halted, which did not enable
his company to complete its assigned asbestos removal
responsibilities before the collapse of P&K Demolitions.

"From my knowledge we were the only ones disposing of asbestos at
the site," he said.

"As a result of site interruptions from the CMFEU we were not
permitted to bring closure to some asbestos removal areas and not
given access to make some areas within the law courts safe."
Queensland's CFMEU did not respond to requests for comment.

A Department of Justice spokesperson said no complaints about
contamination had been received and thus no investigation into air
quality at the site had yet been made.

Mr Filmer said bags of the cancer-causing fibres also remained on
site but he was confident they did not pose any threat to public
health.

"P&K Demolitions were very professional in their approach to
hazardous substances, they engaged us to do all their asbestos
removal and the asbestos we disposed of, or had readied for
disposal was put in as per practice into (hazardous waste) bags,"
he said.

P&K Demolitions won the highly sought demolition contract from
Taiwan-based developer the Shayher Group late last year.
The liquidation of P&K Demolitions has brought the high profile,
multi-million redevelopment to a standstill.

The demolition work was originally due to be completed by the end
of this year and construction of three towers was set to commence
early in 2015.  It is not yet known what impact the delay will
have on construction timelines.

Representatives of the Shayher Group have declined requests for
comment.

Liquidator Nick Combis, a director at Brisbane's Vincent's
Chartered Accountants, said the demolition contract had been
terminated.

"We have been in communication with the owner of the site, the
Shayher Group, and informed them of the appointment of our company
and that in all likelihood, they would be unable to fulfil the
contract," he said.

"P&K have ceased trading and are unlikely to trade again."
P&K Demolitions director Amiga Park told Fairfax Media in February
the $5 million contract was his company's flagship job.
The Shayher Group, part of the Taiwanese conglomerate Par Jar
Group, plans to build three towers on the site, including an 82-
storey apartment complex.

The 300 George Street development, bordered by George, Adelaide
and Ann streets and North Quay, will also include an office tower
and a hotel.

It will be one of Brisbane's largest integrated developments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Sue THAN Fibro Trust for Records
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reported that six insurance
companies are suing an asbestos personal injury trust set up by a
U.S. unit of Philips that the insurers suspect has been making
millions of dollars in fraudulent payments to parties that cannot
prove they were harmed by the company's asbestos products.  In the
lawsuit, the insurers are seeking access to trust records.

The insurers said the asbestos personal injury or PI trust set up
during the 2008 bankruptcy of T H Agriculture & Nutrition LLC, a
unit of Philips Electronics North America Corp, had been paying
substantially more claims than originally forecast.

"Plaintiffs have a reasonable suspicion that fraudulent claims
have been submitted to and paid by the asbestos PI trust," said
the lawsuit, which was filed in Delaware's Court of Chancery.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal and legislative
actions aimed at shedding light on the trusts, which have been
used for decades to compensate people injured by exposure to
cancer-causing asbestos.

Dozens of companies have filed for bankruptcy in the wake of
thousands of lawsuits and then set up trusts that collectively
control tens of billions of dollars.

The six insurers were seeking to conduct an audit of trust records
as part of a bankruptcy agreement with T H Agriculture &
Nutrition, or THAN, Philips Electronics North America and the
asbestos trust.

An attorney who represented THAN as well as the asbestos trust
said the lawsuit had no merit because the insurers were offered
the opportunity to audit the trust's claims in compliance with the
bankruptcy plan.

"They want to conduct a different audit than the one contemplated
by the agreement," said Sander Esserman of Stutzman, Bromberg,
Esserman & Plifka in Dallas. "I suspect the lawsuit will not
receive any traction in the courts."

Philips Electronics did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

THAN filed for bankruptcy in 2008 in the wake of thousands of
lawsuits by people alleging they were made sick by the asbestos
the company distributed until 1980.  In exchange for setting up
the $900 million trust, all future asbestos-related claims against
THAN were directed to the trust.

The six insurers agreed to make installment payments to Philips
Electronics North America based on the distributions by the
asbestos trust. They said in their lawsuit they may have paid $25
million more than they should have due to the suspected fraud.

The insurers are AIU Insurance Co, American Home Assurance Co,
Birmingham Fire Insurance Co of Pennsylvania, Granite State
Insurance Co, Lexington Insurance Co and National Union Fire
Insurance Co of Pittsburgh.

In January, a judge found in the bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing
Technologies that personal injury lawyers had repeatedly sought
claims from asbestos trusts after their clients told courts they
had no exposure to the products the trusts were compensating for.

Federal and state lawmakers have also proposed bills that would
increase disclosure from the asbestos trusts.

The case is AIU Insurance Co et al v Philips Electronics North
America Corp et al, Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 9852.
(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by David
Gregorio)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Sentenced for Fibro Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary V. Murray, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reported that a
plumbing and heating contractor in Worcester, England, was ordered
to serve 60 days of a 2-year jail sentence, and was placed on
probation, after being found guilty of illegal asbestos removal
and disposal, child endangerment and larceny.

Daniel A. Watterson, 43, of 4 Moen St., formerly of Webster, was
sentenced by Judge David Ricciardone in Worcester Superior Court
to 2 years in the House of Correction, with 60 days to be served,
on a reckless endangerment of a child charge. The charge related
to the hiring of a 17-year-old boy to help with the removal and
disposal of asbestos insulation from two old boilers in a house on
June Street in 2008.

Mr. Watterson's contracted work at the residence also led to
convictions last month on three counts of violating the state's
Clean Air Act for improperly removing and disposing of the
asbestos-containing materials.

Judge Ricciardone suspended the balance of the jail sentence on
the child endangerment charge for 5 years with probation. A
concurrent term of 5 years' probation was imposed on the Clean Air
Act violations.

As conditions of probation, the judge ordered Mr. Watterson to pay
for an annual medical examination for William Hackett, the
teenager contracted to perform the asbestos removal and disposal
work, to make sure he has not suffered any long-term health
effects. Judge Ricciardone ordered Mr. Watterson to pay $1,675 to
the owners of the June Street home for expenses they incurred
after being ordered by the state to decontaminate their basement.

The judge also gave Mr. Watterson a stay before he has to begin
serving the 60-day sentence.

The convictions for which Mr. Watterson was sentenced by Judge
Ricciardone came after a jury trial that ended June 16.

Judge Richard T. Tucker, who presided over a bench trial last year
that resulted in convictions on two unrelated larceny charges
against Mr. Watterson, sentenced him to a year in the House of
Correction, but suspended the sentence for 5 years with probation.

The larceny charges, which included larceny over $250 from a
victim over the age of 60 and larceny over $250 by false
pretenses, related to contracting work Mr. Watterson was hired to
perform. As a condition of probation, Judge Tucker ordered Mr.
Watterson to pay $1,500 in restitution to Toufe Thomas, one of the
larceny victims.

Assistant Attorney General Andrew A. Rainer had recommended to
Judge Ricciardone that Mr. Watterson be sentenced to 2 years in
the House of Correction, with 10 years of probation to follow, on
the Clean Air Act and child endangerment convictions.

The prosecutor cited the "outrageousness" of Mr. Watterson's
conduct in exposing a 17-year-old boy to "millions of fibers of
asbestos," and his prior record, which included an assault and
battery conviction more than 20 years ago.

"Jail is what is warranted here," Mr. Rainer told the judge. He
later recommended to Judge Tucker that Mr. Watterson be sentenced
to an unspecified jail term on the larceny charges.

Mr. Watterson's lawyer, Louis P. Aloise, asked that his client be
placed on probation and spared a jail sentence.

Mr. Aloise said Mr. Watterson did not act out of any malice or
with any intention to harm Mr. Hackett, and noted that he, too,
was exposed to the asbestos fibers.

Mr. Aloise told the court that Mr. Watterson has been supporting
himself since the age of 16 and that he has already lost his oil
burner technician and home improvement contracting licenses. Mr.
Aloise said the state's plumbing licensing board would be holding
a hearing soon to determine whether to revoke or suspend his
journeyman plumber's license.

Both judges ordered Mr. Watterson to have no direct or indirect
contact with any of the witnesses in the cases against him.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lanarkshire Residents Moved Over Fibro Fears
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reported that more than 100 residents in North
Lanarkshire, England, have been moved out of a tower block after
asbestos is believed to have been disturbed.  North Lanarkshire
Council said it decided to "decant" tenants from Anderson Tower in
Motherwell as a precautionary measure after air quality testing.
The substance is thought to have been disturbed during mains
cabling replacement work which was being carried out at the tower
by Scottish Power.

The council is closing the block to allow further investigation
and arranging other accommodation for tenants.

A spokesman for North Lanarkshire Council said: "Initial testing
has shown a number of positive results within the building.

"As a precautionary measure, movement to and from the tower was
restricted.

"However, in light of the results, we have decided to decant our
tenants.

"While we do not believe there is any immediate risk to health,
the well-being of our tenants is our priority.

"A temporary reception centre has been identified and we are
arranging alternative accommodation.

"We are hopeful residents will be able to return to the building
as soon as possible."

The multi-storey block houses more than 100 residents in 67 flats.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules for BNSF Railway in Take-Home Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a California appeals court recently held that a railway
company did not owe a duty of care to a construction worker's wife
who allegedly suffered secondary asbestos exposure because it
could not be held responsible for premises liability claims based
on the Campbell decision.

Judge Sandy Kriegler of California's Court of Appeal for the
Second Appellate District delivered the June 3 opinion affirming
the trial court's reliance on the Campbell decision when
sustaining a demurrer in a wrongful death action based on premises
liability. Judge Paul Turner concurred.

"We conclude that [defendant BNSF Railway Company] owed no duty of
care to [the decedent], and affirm the trial court's judgment,"
Kriegler wrote. "We further conclude that the trial court acted
within its discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to
amend, because absent a duty of care, there is no reasonably
possibility that a defect can be cured by amendment."

Judge Michael Mink dissented, arguing it is the court's
responsibility to hold businesses accountable for asbestos
injuries rather than focusing on the societal implications
extending the duty to care could have on asbestos litigation.

"Society does not benefit by allowing tortfeasors to avoid
responsibility for their tortious conduct," he wrote,
"particularly in cases such as the present one where the injury is
a physical one and its cause undisputed."

Decedent Lynn Haver developed throat cancer and progressive lung
disease as a result of secondary asbestos exposure from her former
husband, Mike Haver, who was employed by the Santa Fe Railway (the
predecessor to defendant BNSF Railway Company) in the 1970s.

Plaintiff Joshua Haver, who filed the case on behalf of the
decedent, alleged Mike Haver brought asbestos home on his
clothing, which was then transferred to the couple's home,
exposing his wife.

The decedent was allegedly unaware of the asbestos hazards and
risks to those working with and around asbestos-containing
products, as well as those affected by secondary exposure.

The Havers further alleged that the defendant knew of the dangers
associated with asbestos exposure, including secondary exposure to
employees' families, but failed to warn its employees or create a
safer work environment.

BNSF relied on the Campbell decision in support of its argument
that it had no duty to warn the decedent as a matter of law for
premises liability.

Judge Richard E. Rico of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. As a result, the
plaintiffs appealed the judgment.

In Campbell, a plaintiff filed a premises liability case against
Ford Motor Company alleging she developed mesothelioma from
secondary exposure while laundering her father's and brother's
work clothing.

In the case, Ford was the property owner and hired a contractor to
construct a plant in the 1940s. The contractor hired a
subcontractor who also hired its own subcontractor.

A jury entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Ford appealed, arguing it owed no duty to the plaintiff because a
property owner is not responsible for injuries caused by actions
or omissions of independent contractors unless the property owner
had control over the work allegedly causing the injury.

The appeals court concluded that "even assuming a property owner
can reasonably be expected to foresee the risk of latent disease
to a worker's family members secondarily exposed to asbestos used
on its premises, we must conclude strong public policy
considerations counsel against imposing a duty of care on property
owners for such secondary exposure."

However, the plaintiffs in this case argued that the trial court
erred when sustaining the demurrer in reliance on Campbell.

The Havers attempted to distinguish their case from Campbell,
claiming Mike Haver was a direct employee of the railroad rather
than an employee by a subcontractor "who was several levels
removed from the premises owner."

Kriegler wrote that this assessment is incorrect.

"The Campbell court expressly states that the issue 'is whether a
premises owner has a duty to protect family members of workers on
its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the
course of the property owner's business,'" he stated.

He added that the term "workers" applies to those employed by the
property owner as well as those employed by independent
contractors.

After oral arguments in the case, the plaintiffs brought the
recent Kesner decision to the court's attention, which Kriegler
stated didn't change the court's analysis.

In Kesner, the court extended defendant Pneumo Abex's duty to warn
to an employee's nephew who regularly spent time at his uncle's
home. As a result, the nephew developed mesothelioma.

However, Kriegler explained that Kesner was not a premises
liability case. Instead, the complaint alleged negligence in
Abex's manufacture of asbestos-containing brake linings.

"Kesner expressly does not question the holding in Campbell in the
context of a premises liability cause of action," she concluded.

Mink, on the other hand, disagreed from the majority's decision.

"I believe respondent BNSF had a duty to protect decedent Lynn
Haver from the effects of take-home exposure to asbestos, a
substance which was allegedly used in the workplace of her former
husband, a former BNSF employee," he wrote.

He explained that applying the Rowland factor, as discussed in the
Kesner decision, would provide an alternate finding that BNSF did
owe a duty of care to the decedent.

Minks also disagreed that the Campbell decision is distinguishable
from the Kesner decision based on premises liability versus
negligence claims.

"This attempt is unpersuasive," he wrote. "Whatever label is
attached to the take-home exposure cases, they are all based on
the alleged negligence of the employer."

Minks wrote that the Campbell decision advised against imposing
duty of care for take-home asbestos exposure in order to avoid a
flood of lawsuits clogging the courtrooms and driving companies
out of business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Springfield Diocese Plans Fibro Clean-up
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Goonan, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, expects to award a
contract soon for the demolition of the long-vacant Cathedral High
School campus on Surrey Road, a project that will include
significant advance work to remove asbestos.

There were five bidders for the demolition contract, and the
contractor chosen should be on site no later than early August,
said Mark Dupont, a spokesman for the diocese.

"During this time, the final salvageable items are being removed,"
Dupont said. "Items not designated for re-use by Cathedral or St.
Michael's Academy, are being made available to other area Catholic
schools." St. Michael's Academy middle school was housed on the
campus. It is now operating on Eddywood Street.

Cathedral was left beyond repair since struck by a tornado on June
1, 2011. Since that time, Cathedral has operated at a leased
school building in Wilbraham, pending construction of a new school
on Surrey Road.

The diocese did not release the bid prices, but Dupont said most
were within the cost estimates which had been approaching $3.9
million. The bids are complex and each exceeds 80 pages, he said.

In related news, Cathedral's trustees recently announced the
selection of three co-chairmen to serve on a $10 million
fundraising drive to provide students with tuition assistance. The
endowment fund is deemed critical for Cathedral's future success.

Garrity, said the three selected co-chairs are "a dynamic group of
individuals that will be promoting a successful endowment campaign
for tuition assistance at Cathedral High School."

The co-chairmen are: Michele D'Amour, of Somers, Conn.,
educational partnership administrator at Big Y Foods; Eugene
Cassidy, of Longmeadow, chief executive officer of the Eastern
States Exposition in West Springfield; and Joseph Pantuosco, of
Hampden, financial advisor, Ameriprise LLC.

The endowment campaign, announced in February, stood at $1,112,380
with 953 donors as of late June, which includes funds received and
pledged, Dupont said. The amount does not include funds raised at
a dinner event last week.

The endowment fund includes a $500,000 gift from Michele and
Donald D'Amour. The D'Amours have also issued a challenge grant,
pledging to give up to $1 million more for the endowment with the
specific amount depending on number of donors to the campaign.

"In recent months, school leadership has had many positive
conversations with alumni and other potential major donors and
they are optimistic these will culminate in significant support,"
Dupont said. "Everyone is certainly optimistic that with the
naming of the three co-chairs, the campaign will now be fully
under way."

The diocese is being aided by approximately $29 million in federal
disaster aid, and a settlement of approximately $50 million from
its insurance company, Catholic Mutual, for damage to Cathedral
and other properties.

Former Bishop Timothy McDonnell announced in March that the
diocese would obtain demolition permits and move forward with
design of the new school at the current site. New Bishop Mitchell
Thomas Rozanski "shares Bishop McDonnell's commitment to Catholic
schools, including a concern that we need to be creative in
finding ways to make a Catholic education attainable by all who
seek it," Dupont said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unions Call for Bridges to Ban Fibro Importation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voxy.co.nz reported that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions
is calling on Minister Simon Bridges to act on the eve of
Mesothelioma Day.

"In Parliament, MP Andrew Little tabled an asbestos containing
product which was able to be easily purchased over the counter
from a retail store. Minister Bridges commented that "The Ministry
for the Environment is doing an inventory" of asbestos containing
products -- but we don't need a list -- we need a ban!" CTU
President, Helen Kelly said.

"Minister Bridges can and should act to ban the importation of
this deadly substance -- our nation's biggest workplace killer
with an estimated 170 deaths annually and that this will rise to
over 300 as the results of the 'asbestos boom' of the 1970s take
their toll -- the same as the road toll. Workers are being exposed
to a deadly substance and paying the ultimate price. This is
unacceptable." Kelly said.

"There is an easy fix. Today in Parliament Minister Bridges said
that "this is a complex matter . . . we have a sufficient regime
currently in place".  We do not accept this, and the hundreds of
people who are signing our petition calling on a ban on asbestos
containing products agree." Kelly said.


                             *********

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  * * *