CAR_Public/140815.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 162

                             Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Judge Allows Franchisees' FLSA Suit to Proceed
AARON'S INC: Seeks to Limit Use of Discovery in Privacy Suits
AB ACQUISITION: Removed "Jones" Suit to California District Court
ALCOA INC: ERISA Suit May Be Dismissed Entirely by End of 2014
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Amended "Palkon" Suit Filed in Ariz. Court

ANGIE'S LIST: Hearing on "Fritzinger" Settlement Set for Sept. 14
ANGIE'S LIST: Local 464A Has Until Aug. 15 to Amend Complaint
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Customers' Double-Charging Class Action
ASSESSMENT RECOVERY: Mediation Bid in Darrington "Suit" Denied
B&G FOODS: Bid to Junk Suits Over Pirate Brands Labeling Pending

BANK OF AMERICA: In Talks with Government Over Consumer Relief
BEST BUY: Accused of Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in "Cardoza" Class Action
BRISTOL-MYERS: Sued in N.J. Over Plavix-Related Death
BRISTOL-MYERS: High Court Vacates Liability Ruling in AWP Lawsuit

CARLYLE GROUP: Asks Judge to Toss Collusion Suit Settlements
CLIFFS NATURAL: "Weinstock" Plaintiff Dismisses Securities Suit
CLIFFS NATURAL: "Rosenberg" Securities Suit Pending in Ohio Court
CMS ENERGY: High Court to Hear Gas Index Price Reporting Lawsuit
COMCAST CORP: Boston Cluster Counsel Wants Case Sent to New Court

COMCAST CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Pa. Antitrust Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Court Allows Appeal v. Appointment of Lead Counsel
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Actions Over Software Problems
FACEBOOK INC: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss IPO Suit
FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Still Faces Suits Over Title Insurance Rate

FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Still Faces "Edwards" RESPA Lawsuit in Cal.
FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Court Decertified Class in "Gale" Suit
FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Still Faces Suits Over Illegal Law Practice
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE: Class Cert. Denial in "Haskins" Suit Stands
FPS LP: Class in "Velasquez" Suit Gets Conditional Certification

GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Over Ignition Switch Sent to New York Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Economic Damage Claims Over Ignition Switch
GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces "Pio" Shareholder Lawsuit in Mich.
GENERAL MOTORS: Trial in GMCL Dealers' Claim Set Q3 2014
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge to Encourage Settlements in Ignition Suits

GLOBAL CITY: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Text Messages in Ill.
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Accused of Violating TCPA in C.D. California
HARRIS RANCH: Revised Briefing Schedule in "Gonzalez" Suit Okayed
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: "Goldberg" Case Remanded to NJ Super. Ct.
IDT ENERGY: Removed "Ferrare" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Shareholder Suit Dismissal
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks to Junk Amended Securities Suit in Cal.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Sued in La. Over da Vinci Surgical System
JAN K OVERWEEL: Recalls Luigi Guffanti 1876 Burrata di Corato
JCB TRADING: Recalls Good Day and Kapal Api Grande Coffee Products

KENNIE MACWILLIAMS: Recalls Oysters Due to Vibrio Parahaemolyticus
KTIMA REST: Faces "Hirsch" Suit in N.Y. Alleging ADA Violations
LA FROMAGERIE: Recalls Rhone-Alpes Cheese Due to E. Coli
LIGHT CELLAR: Recalls Super Foods Truly Raw & Organic Carob Powder
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Mary's Organic Crackers Due to Almonds

LOUISIANA: Schedler Obtains Partial Summary Judgment Ruling
LYFT: Drivers' Wage-and-Hour Claims Can't Proceed
MAIN STREET PHARMACY: Sued Over Contaminated Steroid Injection
MALABAR SUPER: Recalls Custom Spice Mix STSSEC-006
MCDONALD'S CORP: NLRB's Wage-and-Hour Ruling Gets Mixed Reactions

MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Ellis" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Montague" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
MERCEDES BENZ: Removed "Gomes" Suit to District of New Jersey
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: To Appeal O'Bannon Likeness Suit Ruling
NATIONAL IMPORTERS: Recalls Shore Lunch Soup Mixes Due to Mustard

NORTHPORTEAST NORTHPORT: Ct. Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Conway" Case
ONITY INC: Hotels' Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
PACCAR: Recalls Certain Models Due to Broken Electrical Connection
PAN ASIA: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
PANASONIC CORP: Capacitors Actions Consolidated in California

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Tosses Election Workers' Class Action
POLFOOD TRADING: Recalls Knorr Fix Spaghetti Due to Undeclared Egg
PORSCHE: Recalls 918 Spyder Model Due to Defective Control Arms
ROCK CREEK: Halts Sales of Anatabloc to Sort Out FDA Issues
SABORES LATINOS: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Undeclared Sesame

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR: Dismissal of "McDonnell" Bias Suit Appealed
SEARS CANADA: Recalls Nevada Moccasins Due to High Level of Lead
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
SOURDOUGH COUNTRY: Recalls Chocolate Macaroons Due to Sulphites
T-BROTHERS: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens

TARGET CORP: Lawyer to Assert RICO Claims in Data Breach Suit
TE CONNECTIVITY: Sued Over Merger With Measurement Specialties
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Sun-Bird Seasoning Mixes Due to Milk
TYLER PIPE: Judgment Motion in "Shamsnia" Suit Denied
USG CORP: Pa. Court Sets Schedules in Wallboard Pricing MDL

UNFI CANADA: Recalls Mary's Organic Crackers and Pretzels
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Scope of Confidentiality Pacts Limited
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Tiguan Due to Reduced Fuel Pump Performance
WINNERS MERCHANTS: Recalls Ecoato Sweet Paprika Powder
YELP INC: Online Reviewers Want Wages and Expenses Under FLSA

YUM! BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Kentucky Court
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Dismiss Labor Suit in California
YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Set in "Rodriguez" Labor Suit v. Taco Bell
YUM! BRANDS: Settlement Hearing Set for Bias Suit v. Taco Bell
YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Seeks Summary Judgment in Labor Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Say Reorg Plan Flouts 9th Circ.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Inks $800M Ch. 11 Exit Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NGA Holdco Hotel Rooms' Ceilings Contain Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Enters Into WRG Share Repurchase Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EEI Continues to Defend Admin. Proceeding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 4 Fibro-related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Has 128 Pending Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: May 2015 Trial Set for AMEC Reimbursement Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Wants Swift Trial in Garlock's Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded to Cleaver-Brooks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. High Court Upholds Abatement Suit Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Logan" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Dismissal of Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Tanfield" FELA Suit Remanded to State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Willis" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Brigantino" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Awarded Summary Judgment in "Haas" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Allowed to Proceed Against Mario & DiBono
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order of Service Issued in Inmate's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Baxley" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Affirms Flintkote Confirmation Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 NY PI Suits Consolidated for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Kennedy" Suit Flipped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Indemnification Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand Order in "Humphries" Suit Vacated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Lawsuit Results in $90-Mil. Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tons of Bagged Fibro Remain on Site in Brisbane
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motherwell Residents Evacuated Over Fibro Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in European Commission Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT to Call on Commonwealth to Fund Fibro Crisis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms $12-Mil. Judgments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Union Carbide Axed Over Medical Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Labor Party Pledges Funds for Cancer Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Close Goodstart Childcare Centre

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blamed for Torrington Builder's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Awarded for Bringing Trader to Justice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Ourimbah's Brush Road
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More People Affected by Fibro Coming Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Unlikely to Have Died From Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Plumber Dies of Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Object to Garlock's Bar Date Proposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indictment of French Mayor Quashed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Fraud Insurers Sue THAN Trust for Records
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns Defense Verdict in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Bradford Schools Asked to Comply With Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Scheduled at 2 Westfield Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sparks Row at Warsop Allotments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Diagnosed With Cancer Raises Fibro Awareness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Store Fibro Removal to Cost $166,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hudson Middle School Abatement Project Approved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Homeowners Fear Backlash
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Left Near Playground
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Who Dumped Fibro Fined $1-Mil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Prompts University Site Shutdown

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Chief Minister Calls for New Warning System
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Responds to Fraud Claims by Panel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Firm Removes Fibro in Wash. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tower Redevelopment Halted Over Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mechanic Can Sue Ford Motor for Further Damages

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buddz's Demolition Delayed by Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capitol House Side Reopens After Fibro Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in NZ City Stockroom
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Contamination Talks Secure Cooperation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Fibro Complicates Kilby Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Fibro Risk at Former Brisbane Law Courts Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovators Face Criminal Charges Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms $12MM Verdict in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Plan for San Rafael School Okayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Experts to Leave Site of Primary School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. School Receives $10M for Fibro Site Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Canaan OKs Settlement in NCHS Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Safe Fibro Disposal Plan Proposed in St. George
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Present in Pioneer Village
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witness Appeal in Peterborough Fibro Death Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Process to Start in Mass. Town
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheraton Hotel Demolition on Schedule
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Makes Fibro Claim Against Norton Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ EQC Kept Mum on Fibro-Infected House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greenwood Looking to Demolish Blighted Homes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Homes May Still Contain Loose-Fill Fibres
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy May Be in NSW South Coast Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MV Miner Removal Dealing With Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Summary Judgment for Defendant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitoba Housing Not Upfront on Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Jury Awards $9.3MM Against Manufacturer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Prompts Temporary Closure of Retailer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Firm Fined by Indiana State
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Residents Take Appeal to Commonwealth
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Attorney General Sues Oxford Fibro Company

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Childcare Center to Close Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas SC Rejects "Every Exposure" Theory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITD Settles with EPA for Inmate's Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Delay Concerns Bozeman Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Junks Fibro Insurance Appeal


                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Judge Allows Franchisees' FLSA Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
citing 7-Eleven's pervasive control of its franchisees'
operations, a Camden, N.J., federal judge denied a motion by the
convenience store chain to dismiss franchisees' claims that they
are employees of the company and have been denied compensation and
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a suit against 7-Eleven by four franchisees, U.S. District
Judge Renee Bumb of the District of New Jersey found the
plaintiffs made a sufficient showing that they are employees to
survive the company's motion to dismiss claims under the FLSA and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Act.  The franchisees' assertion that
they are employees was also supported by their allegations
concerning the permanency of their relationship with the company,
their integral role in the company's business and their economic
dependence on the company, Judge Bumb said.

According to Judge Bumb, the franchisees' wage-and-hour claims
were supported by allegations that 7-Eleven controls settings on
the heat and air conditioning and the volume on the television in
individual stores from corporate headquarters; that the company
controls pricing, ordering and advertising of products; monitors
franchisees' conduct on video cameras; conducts all accounting
itself; and forbids the plaintiffs from making cash withdrawals
without company approval, the judge said.

In declining to dismiss the FLSA claim in Nair v. 7-Eleven,
Judge Bumb noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has defined "expansively" the question of who is an
employee.  Applying a six-part test from Martin v. Selker Bros., a
Third Circuit case from 1991, Judge Bumb found four of the factors
weighed in favor of a finding that the franchisees are employees.

Those four factors were the degree of the alleged employer's right
to control the manner in which the work is performed; the
employee's investment in equipment or materials, or his employment
of helpers; the degree of permanence of the working relationship;
and whether the service rendered is an integral part of the
alleged employer's business.  A fifth factor -- whether the
service rendered required special skills -- weighed against a
finding that the plaintiffs are employees.  Finally, on the
question of whether the plaintiffs' opportunity to make a profit
depends on their own skill, rather than factors outside their
control, the court found the answer was "a close call" that would
not weigh either positively or negatively in the analysis.

The plaintiffs claim in their suit that 7-Eleven engages in the
fraudulent misrepresentation of its relationship with its store
operators in order to avoid paying them minimum and overtime
wages, medical, pension and other employment-related benefits.
They also claim they are subject to harassment by 7-Eleven and are
being pressured to give up their franchises without compensation
for the substantial equity they have built up in their businesses
over many years.

Judge Bumb also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss counts
claiming the company breached an implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and that it violated the New Jersey Franchise
Practices Act by holding franchisees to unreasonable standards.
The plaintiffs claim in their suit that 7-Eleven's requirement
that they purchase maintenance contracts from the company leaves
them at the company's mercy when unanswered maintenance calls
cause food products to spoil.

The judge granted 7-Eleven's motions to dismiss claims that the
plaintiffs, who are all of Indian descent, were discriminated
against on the basis of their national origin, in violation of the
Law Against Discrimination.  The LAD count was premised on
intimidation and bullying by company officials and noted that the
plaintiffs are supervised by a zone leader who is from Pakistan, a
nation whose relationship with India has been marked by hostility.

Judge Bumb also granted the company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claim that they were subject to constructive
termination under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act.  She
cited case law holding that there can be no finding of
constructive termination of a franchisee when the franchise is
still in operation.

Gerald Marks -- jerry@marksklein.com -- of Marks & Klein in Red
Bank, N.J., who represents the plaintiffs, has raised similar
claims that 7-Eleven's level of control of individual stores
supports a finding that its franchisees are employees in another
New Jersey case and in one filed in federal court in the Central
District of California.  No dispositive rulings have been issued
in those cases.

"This franchisor is without doubt the worst example of
franchising, because it totally strips away any sort of decisional
power on the part of the franchisee.  Other franchisors needn't
fear this type of attack because of the way 7-Eleven has imposed
these rigid controls.  You can see this is not a normal franchise
situation," he said.

Mr. Marks claimed 7-Eleven is attempting to "churn" its
franchisees, by wresting control of its most profitable stores and
reselling the franchises, as a prelude to a public stock offering
in the company.  He said a finding that the plaintiffs are
employees would not prevent them from claiming the equity in their
businesses.

The lawyer representing 7-Eleven, Stephen Sussman --
SSussman@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris in Cherry Hill, N.J.,
declined to comment on the ruling.


AARON'S INC: Seeks to Limit Use of Discovery in Privacy Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to R. Robin McDonald at Daily Report, former customers
who are suing Aaron's Inc. and its franchises claim that when the
rental company installed remotely activated secret spyware on its
rental computers, company employees had few, if any, concerns
about the privacy of the customers whose screen shots, webcam
photos and computer keystroke logs they intercepted and recorded.
But in the name of customer privacy the lawyers defending the
suits are seeking to limit public access to the litigation by
asking for broad restrictions on the use of discovery in the
cases.

In pleadings potential class action suits against Aaron's and its
franchises in federal court in Pennsylvania and in Atlanta,
lawyers defending the rental company or its franchises have
attempted to dramatically expand protective orders that
plaintiffs' lawyer Andrea Hirsch -- ahirsch@hermangerel.com -- of
Herman Gerel in Atlanta said originally were intended to shield
from public scrutiny personal information such as passwords and
bank account, credit card and Social Security numbers.

Attorneys on both sides of the litigation have agreed that
personal identifying information should remain confidential.  But
in court pleadings in the Pennsylvania case they fought bitterly
over what, if anything else, should be filed under seal and
available only to the lawyers in the case.

In that case, a protective order issued by the magistrate judge
over defense lawyers' objections allows plaintiffs' lawyers to
disclose information they obtained from Aaron's or its franchisees
to other customers who had rented or bought computers containing
the spyware, even if the information snagged by the secret
software belonged to a non-renter (such as a friend or relative)
who was using the computer at the time the spyware was activated.

In a motion now pending in one of two Atlanta cases stemming from
the spyware allegations, attorneys representing Aaron's franchise
SEI/Aaron's Inc. are asking U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas
Thrash Jr. to whom both Atlanta cases have been assigned to do
what the Pennsylvania court would not.  They want to bar rental
customers from reviewing any information captured surreptitiously
by spyware on their rental computers unless they can prove they
owned or authored the information in question.  They also are
asking that any information that the franchise turns over to Ms.
Hirsch and her co-counsel during discovery to be used only in the
Atlanta suit and barred from use in any other case.

"Many if not all of the SEI computers at issue had more than one
user and it may not be appropriate to show every image to the
customer simply because his name is on the lease," SEI lawyers
contend.  "Rather, images or data should be disclosed only to the
original source of the information or person who was using the
computer at the time the information was captured.  Otherwise,
plaintiffs' counsel could inadvertently create the very type of
disclosures that their lawsuits purport to remedy."

SEI/Aaron's lawyers have also sought to shield company business
plans, sales or marketing information, confidential technical
"know-how," and all other "sensitive proprietary, commercial and
financial information that would be competitively harmful if made
public," including materials in the custody of parent company
Aaron's Inc. and the bankrupt company that designed the spyware.

Judge Thrash said in a July scheduling order that any party
wishing to file documents under seal must first present a motion
or a consent order to the court and that the court clerk is not
authorized to accept any document to file that has been designated
as under seal without an order from the court.  He has not yet
ruled on the SEI/Aaron's protective order request.

Ms. Hirsch said that in the class action privacy case against
Aaron's and its franchises that is pending in federal court in
Pennsylvania, she and her co-counsel "fought tooth and nail" on
behalf of the lead plaintiffs -- a couple whose rental computer
had included the secret spyware software -- and succeeded in
keeping defense attorneys from throwing a blanket of
confidentiality over the entire case.

Now, she said, attorneys defending Aaron's franchisee SEI in
Atlanta are trying the same tactic.  "They wanted everything
locked down and didn't want it to be used in any other case," she
said.

Alston & Bird attorneys Spencer Pryor and Kristine Brown, who are
representing Aaron's in the Pennsylvania litigation, could not be
reached for comment.  Burke Noble -- bnoble@deflaw.com -- an
attorney at Drew, Eckl & Farnham who is defending SEI/Aaron's Inc.
in the Atlanta case, also could not be reached.

But in a brief filed in the Pennsylvania case, Aaron's lawyers
laid out their objections to the Pennsylvania protective order as
not restrictive enough. They said they were not trying to hide
information from the proposed class of customers who rented or
bought computers containing the spyware software, stating:
"Aaron's is simply asking for proper protections for what
plaintiffs claim is incredibly sensitive information."

Ms. Hirsch said that if defense lawyers succeed in securing the
sweeping protective order they have requested in Atlanta, they
would bar her and her colleagues from using information obtained
during the Atlanta litigation in any other case involving the
Aaron's spyware, forcing her and her cocounsel to relitigate
discovery issues in every case brought by an Aaron's customer who
may have been spied on.

Last October, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Aaron's
reached an agreement that bars the company from installing spyware
to gather consumer information from its rental computers or to
track the location of those computers without the express consent
of its customers at the time of rental.

But the federal suits contend that Aaron's has elected not to
notify any customers who had rented or bought computers containing
the spyware or alert them as to whether the spyware had been
activated while those computers were in use.

In a brief opposing the more expansive protective order in the
SEI/Aaron's case in Atlanta, Ms. Hirsch said there appeared to be
little legitimate basis for SEI's position "other than to
discourage future related lawsuits against SEI by perpetuating the
cover-up of SEI's bad conduct, and by making the discovery process
across the board as burdensome and costly as possible."

"Virtually none of the SEI customers who were spied upon by SEI
know that they were harmed," Ms. Hirsch continued.  "And SEI wants
to keep it that way.  SEI has refused to tell those customer-
victims that their confidential and personal information has been
compromised (which would permit those victims to protect
themselves by changing passwords, monitoring credit, etc.).  SEI's
litigation strategy is to cover up its conduct by preventing class
members from even learning they were spied upon. . . . SEI should
not be permitted to use a protective order to shield it from
future litigation and liability."

"If we learned about someone who was spied on," Ms. Hirsch told
the Daily Report, "they didn't want us to be able to contact them,
even though that was the only way for them to know they were
harmed.  They just wanted to use the protective order to shield
them from future litigation."

In a Pennsylvania filing, Aaron's lawyers said as much.  "The risk
that plaintiffs' counsel will attempt to use this information to
'stir up' litigation and 'drum up' new plaintiffs is not
speculative because they are already doing so," they said.
"Within the last few months these same attorneys have filed three
additional lawsuits, two of which include class definitions that
overlap and compete with the very class plaintiffs seek to certify
here."

Frederick Whalen, one of four plaintiffs in one of the two Atlanta
spyware cases, would not have known that Aaron's had spied on his
computer activities and would have had no reason to sue, if his
name had not been among those customers who were identified in a
federal suit against Aaron's in Pennsylvania as having rented
spyware-infected computers, Ms. Hirsch said.

Neither would two Colorado attorneys -- Michael Peterson and
Matthew Lyons -- who also sued Aaron's, as well as its Colorado
franchisee, in federal court in Atlanta.  They claimed that the
companies used spyware to remotely capture more than 4,700 screen
shots and nearly 2,500 keystroke entries, much of it privileged
information associated with attorney work product or clients,
between 2010 and 2011.

According to court documents in the Atlanta and Pennsylvania
suits, Aaron's and its franchises since 2007 have spied on their
computer rental and lease-to-buy customers using a software
program known as PC Rental Agent that was embedded in Aaron's
computers.

If customers were late paying their rental fees, company or
franchise employees would activate the spyware and use it as a way
of attempting to collect late payments.

According to the Pennsylvania complaint, an Aaron's franchisee
used the spyware to photograph lead plaintiff Brian Byrd via the
computer's webcam.  Then a representative of the rental franchise
went to the customer's home, telling him that he owed rental fees
and showing him a photo taken by the webcam of the customer as he
sat at the computer playing Internet poker.

Byrd had bought the computer as part of a lease-to-buy agreement
with Aaron's and had paid the bill in full, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Hirsch has estimated that Aaron's has culled more than 500,000
images, emails, keystrokes and documents from computers either
rented or purchased by its customers using the spyware.  The
Pennsylvania suit alleges that webcams activated by the spyware
also have snapped photos of children, individuals who were not
fully clothed and computer users engaged in sexual activities
within camera range.  All, according to the suits, constitute an
invasion of privacy and computer trespass.


AB ACQUISITION: Removed "Jones" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jones v. AB Acquisition LLC, et
al., Case No. 37-2014-00022248-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the San
Diego Superior Court, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01866-CAB-KSC to the
proceeding.

The case alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2120
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 570-2238
          E-mail: aalivandi@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gmclaughlin@akingump.com


ALCOA INC: ERISA Suit May Be Dismissed Entirely by End of 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit originally filed as Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448, alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act is expected to be dismissed in its entirety at some
point in time during the remainder of 2014, according to the
company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, and bifurcated and stayed the
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims. Trial in the matter
was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending
on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the
Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which sought, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 11, 2012, the court
issued its memorandum and order denying plaintiffs' motion for
clarification and/or amendment to the original judgment order. On
July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's
March 9, 2011 judgment. On July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed
Alcoa's motion for assessment of costs pending resolution of
plaintiffs' appeal. The appeal was docketed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801. On
August 29, 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees without prejudice to refiling the motion following
the resolution of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On May 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued
an opinion affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiffs'
claims for lifetime, uncapped retiree healthcare benefits.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing on May 22, 2013 to which
Alcoa filed a response on June 7, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing. The trial court is now considering Alcoa's request for
an award of costs, which had been stayed pending resolution of the
appeal, and the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, which had
been dismissed without prejudice to refiling following resolution
of the appeal. On December 17, 2013 the United States Supreme
Court docketed the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari to
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as Charles Curtis, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Petitioners v. Alcoa Inc., et al., Docket No.13-728. Alcoa's
opposition to this petition was filed on January 16, 2014 and
Petitioners filed their reply on January 29, 2014.

On February 24, 2014, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
petition. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the matter ends the
substantive litigation and affirms Alcoa's collectively bargained
cap on the Company's contributions to union retiree medical costs.
In the second quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to dismiss their
respective petitions for fees and costs. The case is expected to
be dismissed in its entirety at some point in time during the
remainder of 2014.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Amended "Palkon" Suit Filed in Ariz. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed with the
Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona, according to American
Airlines Group Inc.'s July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2014.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint captioned Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US Airways Group, Inc., et
al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed as a putative class action on
behalf of the stockholders of US Airways Group in the Superior
Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 3, 2013, an amended
complaint, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US Airways Group,
Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed with the same court.
The amended complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and the
members of its board of directors, and alleges that the directors
failed to maximize the value of US Airways Group in connection
with the Merger and that US Airways Group aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought in the amended
complaint included an injunction against the Merger, or rescission
in the event it has been consummated. The court in the action
denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order
that had sought to enjoin the US Airways Group Annual Meeting of
Stockholders. On May 6, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss this action. On May 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration of the court's decision to dismiss the action,
and that motion was denied and judgment entered in favor of the
defendants, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, on
July 14, 2014. As of the date of this report, the Company does not
know if the plaintiff will appeal the dismissal.


ANGIE'S LIST: Hearing on "Fritzinger" Settlement Set for Sept. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing date of September 17, 2014, was set for
Fritzinger v. Angie's List, Inc., which is a case over renewal of
membership fees, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On August 14, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class action status was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that
the Company automatically renews membership fees at a higher rate
than customers are led to believe, breaching their membership
agreements. On April 17, 2014, the Court issued its Order granting
Preliminary Approval of the Parties' Proposed Settlement and set a
final approval hearing date for September 17, 2014. The Company
recorded a $4,000 legal accrual related to the settlement at
December 31, 2013, and for the period ended June 30, 2014, the
Company believes this amount represents the best estimate of the
Company's ultimate liability with respect to this litigation. Any
difference between the amount recorded and the actual final court-
approved settlement is not expected to have a material impact on
the company's financial condition or results of operations.


ANGIE'S LIST: Local 464A Has Until Aug. 15 to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension Fund has
until August 15, 2014 to file a consolidated amended securities
complaint against Angie's List, Inc., according to the company's
July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On December 23, 2013, the first of two putative securities class
action complaints was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and
various of its current and former directors and officers as
defendants. The first complaint is styled as Baron v. Angie's
List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032. On January 9, 2014, the second
putative securities class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The second
complaint is styled as Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al.
Both complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by
making material misstatements in and omitting material information
from the Company's public disclosures concerning the Company's
business prospects. The complaints further allege that the
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of
the officer defendants' positions as control persons. The
complaints request unspecified damages, interest, and costs, as
well as ancillary relief. On June 16, 2014, the Court consolidated
the two cases and appointed United Food & Commercial Workers Local
464A Pension Fund as lead plaintiff ("Local 464A"). Local 464A has
until August 15, 2014 to file a consolidated amended complaint.


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Customers' Double-Charging Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
refused on Aug. 7 to allow plaintiffs who claim Apple Inc. double
charged them for music, videos and other digital goods to move
forward as a class.

In a 32-page order, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose
rejected plaintiffs' request to certify three classes of customers
who claim the Cupertino-based company billed them twice for items
they purchased in the iTunes Store, the App Store and the
iBookstore.  Plaintiffs firms, including Berman DeValerio and
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, sought to certify
two classes for damages and another for injunctive relief.

Siding with Apple's lawyers at Morrison & Foerster, Judge Koh
determined that Herskowitz v. Apple, 12-3124, was not fit for
class treatment because she would have to investigate whether
individual customers meant to purchase products twice.

"The critical question of assent or non-assent turns on an
individualized inquiry for each customer," Judge Koh wrote.

Plaintiffs alleged that millions of people paid twice because
Apple failed to notify them that they had already purchased the
product.  Apple's "no refund" policy meant they never got their
money back, plaintiffs claimed.

But Judge Koh refused to accept plaintiffs' premise that no
reasonable customer would intentionally pay twice for the same
item, reasoning a customer who bought a product on one device
might not want to transfer it for use on another.

In addition to sweeping aside plaintiffs' bid for damages,
Judge Koh rejected plaintiffs' request for an injunction to change
Apple's "no refund" policy.  Judge Koh wrote that evidence in the
record showed Apple had, in fact, refunded purchases on some
occasions.

"Plaintiffs are challenging Apple's variable conduct in the course
of diverse, individualized transactions," she wrote.

Judge Koh added the policy tweak would fatten plaintiffs' wallets.
"Plaintiffs' proposed injunction is practically indistinguishable
from an order that Apple pay plaintiffs money," she wrote.


ASSESSMENT RECOVERY: Mediation Bid in Darrington "Suit" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DARRINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASSESSMENT RECOVERY OF
WASHINGTON, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C13-0286-JCC,
W.D. Wash.) is a class action lawsuit in which Plaintiffs Cynthia
Darrington, Johanna Smith, and James McAdam allege that Defendants
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692 et seq.; the Washington Collection Agency Act
(WCAA), Wash. Rev. Code Sections 19.16.110-240; and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), Wash. Rev. Code Sections
19.86.010-920. Plaintiffs are condominium owners from whom
Assessment Recovery of Washington, LLC (ARW) attempted to or did
collect unpaid monthly assessments owed to condominium owners'
associations and an allegedly unlawful 35 percent collection fee.
Plaintiffs name as defendants ARW; Assessment Recovery, Limited;
Escape Velocity Enterprise Limited; and the owner of each of these
entities, Darron Hay. The Court previously certified an Umbrella
Class and two sub-classes. When the classes were certified, the
Court directed the parties to jointly submit a proposed notice
that would be sent to class members.

Before the Court are the parties' joint motion for class notice,
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs' motion to
compel mediation.

In an order dated August 5, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/mktw0zfrom Leagle.com, District Judge John C.
Coughenour granted the joint motion for class notice; denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to re-
filing once the class has received notice and had an opportunity
to opt out of this case; and denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel
mediation.

Cynthia Darrington, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P Derrig,
PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, Patricia Kay Buchanan,
PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH & Michael T Kitson, PATTERSON
BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH.

John Does, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P Derrig, PATTERSON
BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, Michael T Kitson, PATTERSON BUCHANAN
FOBES & LEITCH & Patricia Kay Buchanan, PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES &
LEITCH.

Johanna Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P Derrig,
PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, Michael T Kitson, PATTERSON
BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH & Patricia Kay Buchanan, PATTERSON
BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH.

James McAdam, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P Derrig, PATTERSON
BUCHANAN FOBES & LEITCH, Michael T Kitson, PATTERSON BUCHANAN
FOBES & LEITCH & Patricia Kay Buchanan, PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES &
LEITCH.

Assessment Recovery of Washington LLC, Defendant, represented by
Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN & THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW
GROUP PLLC, Debbie P Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN &
ISRAEL, LLP & James K. Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN &
ISRAEL, LLC.

ABPO, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN &
THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC, Debbie P
Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP & James K.
Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

AR LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN &
THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC, Debbie P
Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP & James K.
Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

Assessment Recovery, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg,
SULLIVAN & THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC,
Debbie P Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP &
James K. Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

HOA Receivables Management LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew C
Heinegg, SULLIVAN & THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP
PLLC & Debbie P Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL,
LLP.

HRM, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN &
THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC, Debbie P
Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP & James K.
Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

Assessment Recovery Limited, Defendant, represented by Andrew C
Heinegg, SULLIVAN & THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP
PLLC, Debbie P Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP
& James K. Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

Escape Velocity Enterprise Limited, Defendant, represented by
Brian Conroy Read, ESCAPE VELOCITY ENTERPRISE LIMITED, Benjamin J
Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC & Gregory J. Langlais, ESCAPE VELOCITY
ENTERPRISE, LIMITED.

Darron Hay, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN &
THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC, Debbie P
Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP & James K.
Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

Jane Doe Hay, Defendant, represented by Debbie P Kirkpatrick,
SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP, James K. Schultz, SESSIONS,
FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC & Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP
PLLC.

John Does, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN &
THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC, Debbie P
Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP & James K.
Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.

Roe Entities, Defendant, represented by Andrew C Heinegg, SULLIVAN
& THORESON, Benjamin J Stone, VERIS LAW GROUP PLLC, Debbie P
Kirkpatrick, SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP & James K.
Schultz, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.


B&G FOODS: Bid to Junk Suits Over Pirate Brands Labeling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the claims in suits alleging that Pirate
Brands' products are improperly labeled as "natural," is pending,
according to B&G Foods, Inc.'s July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

Pirate Brands has been named as a defendant in six duplicative
putative class actions, two of which were filed prior to the
company's ownership of Pirate Brands.  The cases allege that
Pirate Brands' products are improperly labeled as "natural"
because they contain "genetically modified" and processed
ingredients.  The first case was filed in December 2012 in New
York.  A duplicative case was then filed in February 2013 in
California, which has been transferred to New York.  Identical
actions were then filed in July 2013 in Florida, Washington,
California and New Jersey.  Pirate Brands was successful in its
efforts to have all six cases transferred to New York to be
coordinated before a single judge.  No discovery has commenced in
any of the cases, and a motion to dismiss the claims is pending.


BANK OF AMERICA: In Talks with Government Over Consumer Relief
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deon Roberts, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that now
that Bank of America and the government have agreed in principle
to a settlement that could reach $17 billion, the two sides are
negotiating how the deal will compensate troubled borrowers, a
person familiar with the talks told the Observer on Aug. 7.

After months of talks, the Charlotte bank reached an agreement in
principle of between $16 billion and $17 billion with the
Department of Justice to resolve a variety of mortgage-related
civil probes.  The deal was first reported on Aug. 6.

The settlement is expected to include roughly $9 billion in cash,
plus $7 billion to $8 billion in consumer relief.  The two sides
are negotiating what forms the consumer relief will take, the
source said.  Those could include mortgage modifications or
principal forgiveness.

The settlement remains tentative, and if it falls apart the
Justice Department is expected to sue the bank.  It is unclear
when a settlement might be announced or a lawsuit might be filed.

As negotiations between the parties continue, critics of the
proposed deal have already emerged.

In a statement issued on Aug. 7, Boston-based Neighborhood
Assistance Corp. of America was skeptical that the settlement
would go far enough to help consumers.

"If past settlements are any reflection on the Bank of America
settlement, it will provide little if any real help to stabilize
and increase homeownership," the statement said.

Bruce Marks, CEO of the consumer advocacy group, argues that any
Bank of America settlement should go entirely to consumers --
instead of a portion going to the government as a penalty.

"None of this money should go to the general purposes of the
government," he said.  "It should go to homeowners and
homebuyers."

Consumer relief in such deals can take various forms.  The
consumer relief in the $7 billion Citigroup settlement announced
in July included financing affordable rental housing in high-cost
areas.  JPMorgan's $13 billion deal announced in November includes
principal forgiveness, loan modification and efforts to reduce
blight.

If the Justice Department settles with Bank of America, the two
sides would likely agree on a monitor who would be appointed to
ensure the bank complies with its consumer relief requirements.
Such third-party monitors have been appointed to oversee the
Citigroup and JPMorgan settlements.  Joseph Smith, former North
Carolina banking regulator, is overseeing JPMorgan's compliance.

It is not clear who will oversee any settlement with Bank of
America.

The Bank of America settlement is expected to resolve federal and
state probes into the sale to investors of securities backed by
shoddy home loans that fueled the financial crisis.  It would come
after the bank has already spent more than $60 billion to resolve
crisis-era legal issues, more than any other lender to resolve
similar matters.  It would be the biggest civil settlement between
the U.S. government and a company.

Bank of America executives have said the settlement would resolve
the largest outstanding legal issue it faces since the crisis,
marking a milestone in its efforts to put costly legal issues
behind it.

                     Settlements criticized

Past government settlements with banks have met criticism that
they did too little to help consumers and that distribution of
relief payments hasn't gone smoothly.

Some people reported that checks they were sent last year under a
settlement reached in 2011 with roughly a dozen major banks
bounced when they tried to cash them.  The settlement stemmed from
allegations of robo-signing and other shoddy mortgage-servicing
practices.

Mr. Marks, of NACA, said past settlements have awarded banks
credit for steps -- such as short sales -- that resulted in people
losing their homes.

His organization says it would have preferred more principal
write-downs, assistance in bringing overdue loans current, and
offers of affordable mortgages for low- and middle-income
borrowers.

"The effect of government policy has been foreclosing on millions
of homeowners," Mr. Marks said.  Those millions of foreclosures
have been the result of both failed mortgage-modification efforts
as part of the federal government's crisis-era bailout as well as
post-crisis settlements with lenders, he said.

Bank of America was one of five mortgage servicers that entered
into a landmark, $25 billion national mortgage settlement with
state attorneys general and federal agencies in 2012.  Mr. Smith,
the settlement's watchdog, announced in March that all the
mortgage servicers had satisfied their consumer relief and
refinancing relief obligations.

In theory, it could take years for Bank of America's consumer
relief to reach homeowners and borrowers under a Justice
Department settlement.

JPMorgan and Citigroup each have about four years to fulfill their
consumer relief requirements.


BEST BUY: Accused of Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01057-
MRH (W.D. Pa., August 7, 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


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in "Cardoza" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the case captioned Brooke Cardoza et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
2:13-CV-01820-JAD-NJK, (D. Nev.).

This is a collective action and putative multi-state class action
by Outback Steakhouse Restaurant employees who allege their
employer refused to pay wages for required off-the-clock work,
overtime, and minimum required wages to many thousands of minimum-
wage employees, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
various state employment laws. Defendants moved to dismiss all
claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) as insufficiently pled and for lack of
commonality, and they argue that plaintiffs' claims for violation
of Nevada's wage laws are unsustainable because no private right
to enforce these statutes exists. They also asked the court to
strike allegations about defendants' treatment of nursing mothers
under FRCP 12(f).

Judge Dorsey granted the motion to dismiss the Nevada state law
claims as pled but with leave to amend; struck the nursing-mother
allegations as impertinent; and denied the motion in all other
respects.

Judge Dorsey added that the Plaintiffs' third and fourth claims
are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs have 20 days to file a
second amended complaint that replaces their current third and
fourth claims for relief with a single claim for recoupment of
wages earned and due according to the terms of plaintiffs'
employment, assuming that plaintiffs can truthfully allege facts
to support such a claim.

A copy of Judge Dorsey's July 30, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/z7S4CGfrom Leagle.com.

Brooke Cardoza, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Jacob R Rusch, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Jason J Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse L.
Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Justin C. Jones, Wolf Rifkin
Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC & Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman
and Rabkin, LLP.

Cody C. Hancock, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Jacob R Rusch, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Jason J Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse L.
Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Justin C. Jones, Wolf Rifkin
Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC & Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman
and Rabkin, LLP.

Michael Yendes, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Jeffery Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Kevin Connelley, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Trevor Tullis, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Denise Goodlin, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Joseph Verrengia, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones,
Wolf Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Amy Womack, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Valerie Gardner, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Alex Nesbitt, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Daniel Geiger, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Rachel Talasko, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Wesley Miles, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric Levinrad, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Matthew Oster, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A.
Conway, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin David Johnson, Thompson,
Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Marquis William Heilig,
Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing,
P.A. & F. Thomas Edwards, Holley, Driggs, Walch, Puzey & Thompson.

OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Catherine
A. Conway, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jesse A. Cripps,
Jr, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin David Johnson, Thompson,
Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Marquis William Heilig,
Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing,
P.A. & F. Thomas Edwards, Holley, Driggs, Walch, Puzey & Thompson.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Catherine A. Conway, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jesse A.
Cripps, Jr, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin David Johnson,
Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Marquis William
Heilig, Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Sarah
Zenewicz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Thompson, Sizemore,
Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. & F. Thomas Edwards, Holley, Driggs,
Walch, Puzey & Thompson.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Catherine
A. Conway, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jesse A. Cripps,
Jr, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin David Johnson, Thompson,
Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Marquis William Heilig,
Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, PA, Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing,
P.A. & F. Thomas Edwards, Holley, Driggs, Walch, Puzey & Thompson.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Sued in N.J. Over Plavix-Related Death
-----------------------------------------------------
Joyce Venis, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of
Malcolm F. Becker, Deceased v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Sanofi-Aventis U.S., L.L.C., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., Sanofi-
Synthelabo, Inc., McKesson Corporation, and Does 1-100, Case No.
3:14-cv-04982-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., August 7, 2014) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff's deceased husband, Malcolm Becker, and
his estate.

Mr. Becker was an 82- year-old man, who began Plavix therapy in
2011 for treatment of coronary artery disease.  He died of a lower
gastrointestinal bleed after ingesting Plavix, according to the
complaint.

The lawsuit is brought for injuries, wrongful death and survival
damages suffered as a result of ingesting the drug, Plavix, which
was heavily marketed directly to consumers.  Plavix was touted as
a "super-aspirin," that would give a person even greater
cardiovascular benefits than a much less expensive, daily aspirin
while being safer and easier on a person's stomach than aspirin,
Ms. Venis says.  She contends that those assertions have proven to
be false.

The case is a potential tag-along action and should be transferred
to the United States District Court of New Jersey for inclusion in
In Re: Plavix Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation (No. II), the complaint states.

New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical
manufacturing and marketing company that partners with Sanofi-
Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis U.S, Inc.)
to manufacture and market Plavix in the United States.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. L.L.C. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., are
subsidiaries of the French pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis,
which partner with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company to manufacture and
market Plavix in the United States.  Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its commercial headquarters New York
City.  Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. did business as Sanofi
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and was the sponsor for the drug application
for Plavix.  Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. is an affiliate of Sanofi-
Aventis, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi- Aventis, Inc. that
was instrumental in bringing Plavix to market.

McKesson Corporation is a pharmaceutical distribution and
marketing company organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Delaware, with its headquarters located in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin P. Schrama, Esq.
          STARK & STARK, PC
          993 Lenox Drive
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2389
          Telephone: (609) 896-9060
          Facsimile: (609) 895-7395
          E-mail: mschrama@stark-stark.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: High Court Vacates Liability Ruling in AWP Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth judge's
decision in the AWP Litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company and remanded the matter back to the Commonwealth Court,
according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys
general suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant
in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth
Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September
2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the
Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a
decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not
go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and
enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and oral argument took place in May
2013. In June 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the
Commonwealth judge's decision and remanded the matter back to the
Commonwealth Court.


CARLYLE GROUP: Asks Judge to Toss Collusion Suit Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that after
a trio of new settlements, investors have now inked deals worth
$475.5 million with private equity firms accused of scheming to
drive down the value of major leveraged buyout deals.  But one
defendant remains -- Carlyle Group LP -- and its lawyers at Latham
& Watkins have shown no signs of surrender ahead of a looming
trial this fall.

In a motion filed on Aug. 7, plaintiffs lawyers at Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi, Scott & Scott and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
urged a federal judge in Boston to approve a combined $325 million
in fresh settlements with Blackstone Group LP, Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. and TPG Capital LP. Those deals follow earlier
settlements with Bain Capital Partners LLC ($54 million), Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. ($67 million) and Silver Lake Technology
Management LLC ($29.5 million).

It's been seven years since investors first launched the
litigation, alleging that 11 leading buyout firms colluded to
divvy up promising takeover targets and to refrain from outbidding
each other in 17 multibillion-dollar deals.  But despite the
proposed settlements reached so far, the case hasn't quite turned
into the billion-dollar bonanza it once promised to be.

A federal judge in Boston expanded the litigation to include 27
megabuyouts in 2011, but in March 2013 he greatly narrowed the
case, allowing the plaintiffs to pursue claims that the defendants
conspired not to "jump" each other's offers in eight LBOs.
Meanwhile, the defendants -- including holdout Carlyle -- have
continued to press the court to throw out the proposed class or
toss the plaintiffs' claims.

Most notably, the buyout firms maintain that shareholders in all
but one of the suspect deals are subject to broad but varied
releases in connection with past M&A litigation, making the case
unsuitable for class treatment.  Carlyle has asked the judge not
to approve the existing settlements for the same reason, arguing
that he should first determine whether the releases are fatal to
class certification.  And in a motion for summary judgment filed
recently, Carlyle's lawyers at Latham asserted that the plaintiffs
can't prove any injury (or "impact," in antitrust parlance),
because there's no evidence that the buyout firms would have tried
to top each other's bids even in the absence of an alleged
conspiracy.

The Litigation Daily reached out to Carlyle counsel
Margaret Zwisler at Latham but didn't hear back.  Carlyle said in
a statement that it would continue to "vigorously contest" the
shareholders' claims.

The lineup for the settling defendants includes Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo (for
Blackstone and KKR) and Susman Godfrey (for TPG).  JPMorgan Chase
& Co., Apollo Global Management, Providence Equity Partners and
Thomas H. Lee Partners LP were previously dismissed from the case.
U.S. District Judge William G. Young hasn't yet ruled on class
certification or on Carlyle's latest summary judgment motion.  He
previously set a trial date for Nov. 3.  Plaintiffs colead counsel
K. Craig Wildfang of Robbins Kaplan didn't immediately return a
call.


CLIFFS NATURAL: "Weinstock" Plaintiff Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------The
plaintiff in the securities lawsuit Weinstock v. Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1106 voluntarily dismissed the
case without prejudice, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In May 2014, alleged purchasers of the company's common shares
filed two lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the company and certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company. The actions are
captioned Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey
and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.,
et al., No. 1:14-CV-1031 and Weinstock v. Cliffs Natural Resources
Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1106. Both actions assert violations of
the federal securities laws based on alleged false or misleading
statements or omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to
March 26, 2013, regarding operations at the company's Bloom Lake
mine in Quebec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on the
company's finances and outlook, including sustainability of the
dividend, and that the alleged misstatements caused the company's
common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. Both
lawsuits seek class certification and an award of monetary damages
to the putative class in an unspecified amount, along with costs
of suit and attorneys' fees. These lawsuits have been referred to
the company's insurance carriers. On July 15, 2014, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the Weinstock lawsuit.


CLIFFS NATURAL: "Rosenberg" Securities Suit Pending in Ohio Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities action Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.,
et al., No. CV-14-828140 is pending in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
Court of Common Pleas, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued
by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative
class action of all such purchasers in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
Court of Common Pleas. The action is captioned Rosenberg v. Cliffs
Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. CV-14-828140, and asserts
claims against the company, certain current and former officers
and directors of the Company, and eight underwriters of the
offering, alleging disclosure violations in the registration
statement regarding operations at the company's Bloom Lake mine
and the impact of those operations on the company's finances and
outlook. This action seeks class certification and monetary relief
in an unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys'
fees. This lawsuit has been referred to the company's insurance
carriers.


CMS ENERGY: High Court to Hear Gas Index Price Reporting Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Gas Index Price
Reporting Litigation against CMS Energy Corporation in late 2014
with an opinion expected in the first half of 2015, according to
the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

CMS Energy Corp., along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as
defendants in five class action lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.  Allegations include manipulation
of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing
conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of
natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs are making claims for the following:  full
consideration damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, costs,
interest, and/or attorney fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL.  In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants in the MDL cases were dismissed based on FERC
preemption.  Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases.  The
issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the MDL decision and remanded the case to the MDL judge
for further proceedings.  The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases.  The
Court affirmed the MDL court's denial of leave to amend to add
federal antitrust claims.

In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which
CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In July 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.  Arguments are expected to
be heard in late 2014 with an opinion expected in the first half
of 2015.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


COMCAST CORP: Boston Cluster Counsel Wants Case Sent to New Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New counsel for antitrust cases against Comcast Corporation
requested the Boston Cluster (customer) cases be transferred to
the federal court, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The company is a defendant in two purported class actions
originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
the company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were
certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. The
company appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia
Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the class certification in August 2011. In June 2012, the U.S.
Supreme Court granted the company's petition to review the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and in March 2013, the Supreme
Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified and
reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. The matter has been
returned to the District Court for action consistent with the
Supreme Court's opinion. In August 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class,
which the company opposed in January 2014. The parties have been
discussing possible resolution of the Philadelphia Cluster case.
Accordingly, in February 2014, the plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion to stay the case, which the District Court granted. In
April 2014, the District Court granted the company's unopposed
motion to de-certify the Chicago Cluster class and the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to amend the Pennsylvania case so as to dismiss
claims relating to the Chicago Cluster. In April 2014, lead
counsel for the Boston Cluster cases withdrew, and in June 2014,
new counsel requested the Boston Cluster cases be transferred to
the federal court in Boston, which the company opposed.


COMCAST CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Pa. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases alleging
that Comcast Corp. improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to
the provision of premium cable services was submitted to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In addition, the company is a defendant in 22 purported class
actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country.
All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial
proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on
behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the
plaintiffs allege that the company improperly "tied" the rental of
set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state
antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in
California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a
claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of the company's premium cable customers and on
behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from
California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In
January 2010, the company moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In
September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive
trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West
Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their
unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on
behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging
only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on
behalf of a nationwide class of the company's premium cable
customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable
customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, the
company moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs'
claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration. The
West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West
Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that the company
improperly "tied" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of
digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust
Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The
Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment/restitution. The company removed the case to the United
States District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation. In June 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement for
all 23 cases was submitted to the District Court for preliminary
approval.


EQUIFAX INC: Court Allows Appeal v. Appointment of Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is allowing an
appeal against an order that appointed interim lead counsel in a
suit against Equifax Inc. alleging it violated the California
Credit Reporting Act, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the
District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release
providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants
to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That
settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not
plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May 7, 2009, the District Court
issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle
remaining class claims. The District Court subsequently deferred
final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties
to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a
claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost
for the re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee
award.   Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on
February 15, 2011.  The deadline for this group of settling
plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their
damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.
On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting
plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling
plaintiff and granted the motion of counsel for the settling
plaintiffs' to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On May
1, 2014, the District Court granted the objecting plaintiffs
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the January
21, 2014 Order and the objectors filed a petition for permission
to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On
July 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the petition for permission to appeal.


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Actions Over Software Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
after a software glitch sent bar-examination takers scrambling to
upload their answers, disgruntled law graduates have filed two
class actions against the company that provided the testing
software.

Phillip Litchfield, a May graduate of Chicago-Kent College of Law,
filed his claim against ExamSoft Worldwide Inc. on Aug. 4 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking more
than $5 million on behalf of bar-exam takers.

A day later, Wake Forest University School of Law alumnus
Catherine Booher and Gonzaga University School of Law graduate
Christopher Davis became name plaintiffs in a class action against
ExamSoft in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.  They, too, seek more than $5 million in damages for
the class.

"On the long list of things about which exam takers should be
worried, wondering whether they will be able to turn in their
exams for grading should be at the very bottom," the Washington
state complaint says.  "It is hard to imagine anything more basic
in an exam than being able to turn it in for grading."

Bar examiners use ExamSoft's software to manage delivery of their
tests to candidates who use computers.  Test takers pay between
$100 and $150 to download the software, which allows them to
upload the written portions of their tests for grading, according
to the complaints.

But when takers attempted to upload their answers after the first
day of the exam on July 29, many encountered a glitch that held up
their answers for many hours. A number of jurisdictions extended
their submission deadlines, but some test takers were left
frustrated and rattled.

ExamSoft spokesman Ken Knotts had no immediate response to a call
for comment.  In press accounts, the company initially blamed a
high volume of test takers attempting to upload answers at the
same time, but acknowledged the situation was unacceptable.

"The total collapse of the ExamSoft upload system (including its
upload servers, website, and phone system) stemmed from wholly
insufficient infrastructure that was unable to process the
thousands of bar exam results in real time," the Illinois
complaint says.  "This failure occurred despite the fact that
ExamSoft knew well in advance of exam day exactly how many
applicants had registered and paid to use the SofTest program."

The Illinois suit seeks compensation for the emotional distress
test takers suffered as they waited to find out whether their exam
answers had uploaded properly.

The Washington suit makes a similar claim.  "Not surprisingly, the
thousands of exam takers who were unable to upload their exams
were extraordinarily distressed," that complaint reads.  "Far from
providing the stress-reducing functionality it advertised,
ExamSoft added an extraordinary burden to an endeavor already
fraught with stress and worry."

Named plaintiff Booher was unable to fully upload her first-day
answers until halfway through the second day of the exam, the suit
claims -- a huge distraction during the test itself.

ExamSoft's refusal thus far to offer refunds to test takers has
rankled people across legal education.  The Above the Law blog ran
a post titled: "Dear ExamSoft: Please Give Kids Their Money Back
Before the Internet Murders You."

Northwestern University School of Law Dean Daniel Rodriguez made a
similar point on his personal blog in response to a letter of
apology sent to law deans by ExamSoft chief executive officer
Daniel Muzquiz.  The letter reviewed the problems and promised to
do better.  But Rodriquez suggested refunds would be in order,
given the "serious toll" on bar takers.

"Such a gesture, whether or not legally compelled, would be the
right thing to do, in my opinion," Mr. Rodriquez wrote.  "While I
by no means speak for anyone other than myself, I would
respectfully suggest that you consider, if you have not already,
some tangible steps that meet this clear moral obligation to make
amends.  I call upon you to reflect further upon this unfortunate
episode and do the right thing."


FACEBOOK INC: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the motion of Facebook, Inc. to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against it, according to the
company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions,
derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state and
federal courts in the United States and in other jurisdictions
against the company, the company's directors, and/or certain of
the company's officers alleging violation of securities laws or
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the company's
initial public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified damages. The
company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and the company
intends to continue to vigorously defend them. The vast majority
of the cases in the United States, along with multiple cases filed
against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(collectively referred to herein as NASDAQ) alleging technical and
other trading-related errors by NASDAQ in connection with the
company's IPO, were ordered centralized for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. In a series of rulings in 2013
and 2014, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action and granted the company's
motions to dismiss the derivative actions against the company's
directors and certain of the company's officers. The plaintiffs in
four of these derivative actions have filed notices of appeal. In
addition, the events surrounding the company's IPO became the
subject of various state and federal government inquiries. In May
2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified the
company that it had terminated its inquiry and that no enforcement
action had been recommended by the SEC.


FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Still Faces Suits Over Title Insurance Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation is facing several lawsuits
alleging it charged an improper rate for title insurance in a
refinance transaction, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents: charged
an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction,
including:

     (i)  Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company,
          filed on September 29, 2010 and pending in the United
          States District Court of New Jersey,

     (ii) Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
          on February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States
          District Court of Pennsylvania,

    (iii) Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
          on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States
          District Court for the District of Idaho,

     (iv) Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company,
          filed on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit
          Court, Nassau County, Florida, and

      (v) Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company,
          filed on December 19, 2005 and pending in the United
          States District Court for the Western District of
          Pennsylvania.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions.  A court has
only granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone. The class
originally certified in Slapikas was subsequently decertified.


FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Still Faces "Edwards" RESPA Lawsuit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation remains
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents:

purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the
Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and
others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, including, Edwards v. First American
Financial Corporation, filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified.


FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Court Decertified Class in "Gale" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The class originally certified in Gale v. First American Title
Insurance Company, et al. pending in the United States District
Court of Connecticut was subsequently decertified, according to
the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents: engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law, including

Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., was filed
on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States District
Court of Connecticut.  The class originally certified in Gale was
subsequently decertified.


FIRST AMERICAN FIN'L: Still Faces Suits Over Illegal Law Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corp. continues to face several lawsuits
in federal courts alleging it engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents: engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law, including overcharged or
improperly charged fees for products and services provided in
connection with the closing of real estate transactions, denied
home warranty claims, recorded telephone calls, and gave items of
value to developers, builders and others as inducements to refer
business in violation of certain other laws, such as consumer
protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business
practices, and certain obligations, including:

     (a) Bushman v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
al., filed on November 21, 2013 and pending in the Circuit Court
of the State of Michigan, County of Washtenaw,

     (b) Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009 and pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,

     (c) Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court of New Jersey,

     (d) Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection
Corporation, filed on March 10, 2009 and pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,

     (e) Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

     (f) Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     (g) Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     (h) Muehling v. First American Title Company, filed on
December 11, 2012 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Alameda,

     (i) Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     (j) Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, and

     (k) Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated.  A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and plaintiff
has filed a notice of appeal.


FIRST AMERICAN TITLE: Class Cert. Denial in "Haskins" Suit Stands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM HASKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE CO., Defendant, CIVIL NO. 10-5044 (RMB/JS), (D. N.J.) is
before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
requesting that the court reconsider its denial of Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs are New Jersey homeowners who refinanced their home
mortgages and allege in their Amended Class Action Complaint that
First American T systematically overcharged New Jersey homeowners
for title insurance during refinance transactions. Plaintiffs
claim that Defendant was bound by statutory title insurance rates,
but overstated those fees on the HUD-1 Settlement Statements at
closing.

District Judge Renee Marie Bumb, in an opinion dated July 30,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/kTK2y5from
Leagle.com, wrote that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
is a reiteration of the same superficial arguments asserted in
their Motion for Class Certification that are belied by the
evidence presented in this case, including the Plaintiffs' own
expert's testimony.

"Plaintiffs have presented no arguments or evidence that this
Court overlooked in their motion demonstrating that
reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
fact to prevent manifest injustice," she said.  "This Court,
therefore, maintains its ruling that Plaintiffs proposed class
fails to meet the ascertainability, commonality and predominance
requirements needed for certification under Rule 23."

Daniel Posternock, McDowell Riga Posternock, PC, Moorestown, NJ,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Edward J. Reich -- edward.reich@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP New
York, NY.


FPS LP: Class in "Velasquez" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In MOISES VELAZQUEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. FPS LP; dba OFFICE
FURNITURE CONNECTION, et al, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-
1563, (S.D. Tex.), pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Certification, Curative Notice and Invalidation of
"Opt-Out" Forms, and Request for Leave to File Additional
Declarations Under Seal.

District Judge Melinda Harmon, in an opinion and order dated
August 4, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/WX8Y5Afrom Leagle.com, granted the  Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification, and conditionally certified
the class defined as: All of Defendants' current and former
Service and Installation Technicians who were paid straight time
for overtime for any hours worked over 40 in at least one workweek
during the last three years.

The Court ordered the Defendants produce to Plaintiffs a computer-
readable data file containing the names, last-known mailing
addresses, last-known email addresses, and last-known telephone
numbers for all class members.

The proposed notice must be modified prior to dissemination
consistent with the Court's Opinion, Judge Harmon held. Putative
class members will have 60 days after the postmark date of
Plaintiffs' mailing to execute the consent form and return it to
Plaintiffs' counsel for filing with the Court. A putative class
member's submission of an executed consent to Plaintiffs' counsel
after the sixty-day deadline will be deemed untimely.

Moises Velazquez, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton,
Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Fredy Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton --
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Ever Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

Marcos Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton,
Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Luis Arteaga, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

Guillermo Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton,
Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Jose Peregrino, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton,
Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Juan Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

Fernando Esparza, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton,
Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Job Urrutia, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

Juan Lara, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

Francis Torres, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton,
Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Juan Lizana, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

Ciro Perez, Plaintiff, represented by David I. Moulton, Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

FPS LP, Defendant, represented by Nelson T Hensley & Cory Matthew
Krueger, Hensley & Krueger LLP.

Vincent Oddo Interior Service Inc., Defendant, represented by
Nelson T Hensley & Cory Matthew Krueger, Hensley & Krueger LLP.

Furniture Procurement Services, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Nelson T Hensley & Cory Matthew Krueger, Hensley & Krueger LLP.

Vincent Oddo, Defendant, represented by Nelson T Hensley & Cory
Matthew Krueger, Hensley & Krueger LLP.

TLD Premier Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph W
Varela & Nelson T Hensley.

Telmo Urrutia, Defendant, represented by Joseph W Varela & Nelson
T Hensley.


GENERAL MOTORS: Suits Over Ignition Switch Sent to New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100 cases (including personal injury cases) against
General Motors Company over its ignition switches have been
transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's July 24,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In the three months ended March 31, 2014 the company announced a
recall to repair ignition switches that under certain
circumstances could unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of
power, which in turn may prevent front airbags from deploying in
the event of a crash. The recall includes approximately 2.6
million Chevrolet Cobalt, HHR, Pontiac G5, Pursuit, Solstice, and
Saturn ION and Sky vehicles.

Through July 23, 2014 the company is aware of 95 putative class
actions that have been filed against GM in various U.S. District
Courts and state courts since the recall announcement alleging
that consumers have been economically harmed by the recall and/or
the underlying vehicle condition. In the aggregate, these cases
seek recovery for compensatory damages, including for alleged
diminution in value of the vehicles, punitive damages and
injunctive and other relief. Most, but not all, of these lawsuits
are pending in federal court. Additionally, through July 23, 2014,
eight putative class actions have been filed in various Provincial
Courts in Canada seeking similar relief. In June 2014 the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that 15
of the then pending U.S. federal lawsuits involving ignition
switches be transferred to and consolidated in a single federal
court, the Southern District of New York. To date, more than 100
cases (including personal injury cases) have been transferred and
consolidated in that same court, and GM has requested that various
other recently filed federal lawsuits also be transferred and
consolidated with those same actions. Because the majority of
plaintiffs in these actions are suing over vehicles manufactured
by pre-bankruptcy General Motors Corporation, GM will seek to
enforce the terms of the federal Bankruptcy Court's July 2009 Sale
Order and Injunction to preclude liability for any economic loss
damages based on vehicles and parts manufactured prior to July
2009. These cases are in their very early stages. No discovery has
yet taken place.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Economic Damage Claims Over Ignition Switch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is facing lawsuits alleging that its
purported concealment of "defective" ignition switches that have
been the subject of recalls in 2014 has diminished the value of
other GM vehicles, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Through July 23, 2014 the company is aware of two actions that
have been filed against GM alleging that GM's purported
concealment of the ignition switch and other defects that have
been the subject of recalls in 2014 has diminished the value of
other GM vehicles and seeking economic damages under California
consumer protection statutes. One of these actions is a putative
class action that has been consolidated with the ignition switch
putative class actions and transferred to the Southern District of
New York. The other action was brought by the Orange County,
California district attorney and is pending in California state
court. In the aggregate these actions seek recovery under
California consumer protection statutes for economic damages as
well as civil penalties, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces "Pio" Shareholder Lawsuit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder lawsuit Pio v. General Motors Company et al.
continues in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On March 21, 2014 a putative shareholder class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against GM and various current and former officers of GM
(Pio v. General Motors Company et al.) on behalf of purchasers of
GM securities from November 17, 2010 through March 10, 2014. The
complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements and
omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch in SEC
filings. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs. Four shareholders have
filed motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff in this
putative class action. After the court rules on those motions and
appoints a lead plaintiff, the company anticipates the lead
plaintiff will file an amended complaint that may include
allegations different from those in the current complaint.


GENERAL MOTORS: Trial in GMCL Dealers' Claim Set Q3 2014
--------------------------------------------------------
Trial of the class issues in a suit filed on behalf of a purported
class of over 200 former General Motors of Canada Limited dealers
is scheduled to commence in the third quarter of 2014, according
to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers
(the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global
restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might
be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the
Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their
exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down
their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or
such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31,
2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the
wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding"
Canadian Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific
measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved
certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of
specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached
its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down
agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff
Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was
obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more
specific information regarding its restructuring plans in
connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4)
assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover
damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual
damages). A number of former dealers have opted out of
participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the
certified class. Trial of the class issues is scheduled to
commence in the third quarter of 2014.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge to Encourage Settlements in Ignition Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge told lawyers on Aug. 11 he'll encourage settlements
in lawsuits brought on behalf of nearly 1,000 plaintiffs against
General Motors for defective ignition switches.

U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman told dozens of lawyers at a
hearing that he'll be careful not to interfere with the work of a
bankruptcy judge who is deciding if the Detroit-based automaker's
2009 bankruptcy protects it from economic damages claims.  Judge
Furman said he wanted to be "sensitive about stepping on the toes"
of the bankruptcy judge but planned to advance the litigation as
much as possible nonetheless.

He made introductory remarks at an initial hearing after he was
chosen to preside over more than 100 lawsuits that were
consolidated in New York because of their common attributes.  He
said he planned "to encourage settlement as much as possible" once
any potential payouts were better defined after rulings by the
bankruptcy court.

Lawsuits were filed after General Motors Co. in February began
recalling 2.6 million of the cars, mainly Chevrolet Cobalts and
Saturn Ions.  GM has acknowledged knowing that the switches in its
small cars had problems since at least 2001.  Federal law requires
automakers to report safety defects to the government within five
days of discovering them.

The ignition switches, when jostled, can shut off the engine,
cutting power steering and brakes and potentially causing drivers
to lose control.  The problem also can disable air bags.

GM says at least 13 people have died in 54 crashes linked to the
problem, while lawyers suing the company say the death toll is
more than 60.

In May, federal safety regulators ordered General Motors to pay a
record $35 million fine for failing to disclose the ignition
switch defect in millions of cars for more than a decade.

GM attorney Richard C. Godfrey told Judge Furman that 983
plaintiffs had filed 109 lawsuits, with about a dozen of the
lawsuits making personal-injury claims while the rest were solely
for economic losses.

Owners of the 2.6 million small cars that were recalled are
eligible for compensation from a fund being administered by
compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg on GM's behalf.
Mr. Feinberg, who handled claims for the BP Gulf Oil Spill and the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has said GM has placed no limit
on the amount of money he can spend to compensate anyone who was
injured or killed.

In all, GM has called back 16.5 million vehicles for ignition
switch problems while beginning reforms, including appointing a
new safety chief and continuing to issue recalls when problems are
identified.

GM received a $49.5 billion bailout from Washington during its
2009 bankruptcy.  While the government was once the automaker's
majority shareholder, it sold off the last of its GM stock in
December.


GLOBAL CITY: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Text Messages in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Salam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global City Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06083 (N.D.
Ill., August 7, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated
persons, who received unsolicited text messages sent from or on
behalf of GCG.

The Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1591
          Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Accused of Violating TCPA in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Lopez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Guthy-Renker LLC a/k/a Wen By Chaz Dean, Case No.
2:14-cv-06224-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2014) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS RANCH: Revised Briefing Schedule in "Gonzalez" Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill signed on August 5, 2014, a
stipulation and order modifying the briefing schedule in JOSE
GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HARRIS RANCH BEEF COMPANY, a California corporation;
HARRIS RANCH BEEF HOLDING COMPANY, a California corporation;
HARRIS FARMS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 2 through
10, inclusive, Defendants.  HARRIS FARMS, INC., a California
corporation, Cross-Complainant, v. SPRINGER-MILLER SYSTEMS, INC.,
a Vermont corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Cross-Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00038-LIO-SAB, (E.D. Cal.).

Jose Gonzalez filed his putative class action lawsuit against
Harris Farms on December 4, 2013. Harris Farms filed a cross-
complaint against PAR Springer-Miller on June 2, 2014. PAR
Springer-Miller filed its Motion to Dismiss the Cross Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 29,
2014. PAR Springer-Miller initially scheduled a hearing on its
Motion for August 28, 2014.

In the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/oZUopFfrom Leagle.com, Cross-Plaintiff Harris Farms,
and Cross-Defendant PAR Springer-Miller Systems, Inc. agreed that
the hearing on PAR Springer-Miller's Motion to Dismiss the Cross-
Complaint be continued until September 11 at 8:30 a.m.; that
Harris Farms' deadline to file its opposition to the Motion be set
at August 21; and that PAR Springer-Miller's deadline to file its
reply be set to September 4.

COOLEY LLP WHITTY SOMVICHIAN -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- DAVID S.
HOUSKA -- dhouska@cooley.com -- San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for
Cross-Defendant PAR SPRINGER-MILLER SYSTEMS, INC.

WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN, LAW CORPORATION ALDEN J.
PARKER -- aparker@weintraub.com -- MEAGAN D. CHRISTIANSEN,
Attorneys for Cross-Plaintiff HARRIS FARMS, INC.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: "Goldberg" Case Remanded to NJ Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCHEL GOLDBERG AND JERRY VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHPORT
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, KIMBALL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., COMMUNITY MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., OCEAN MEDICAL CENTER, JERSEY
SHORE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, and MERIDIAN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-2810 (WHW)(CLW), (D. N.J.) alleges
violations of N.J.A.C. Section 8:43-G15.3(d) (2014), a state
regulation governing the charges that a hospital or third party
may charge a patient for a copy of his medical records.

Defendant Healthport removed the action on May 1, 2014, citing 28
U.S.C. Section 1332 and 1441, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
and "all other applicable bases for removal." It argued that
removal is appropriate under CAFA because the parties are
minimally diverse, the proposed class contains at least 100
members, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.

Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that Defendant's amount in
controversy calculation is faulty and that removal is
inappropriate under the "local controversy" and "home state"
exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction.

In an opinion dated July 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Sw3WiTfrom Leagle.com, District Judge William H.
Walls granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and remanded the
case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County.  The
Defendant's motion for permission to file a sur-reply was denied.

FISCHEL GOLDBERG, Plaintiff, represented by PETER J. KURSHAN --
PKurshan@chaselawnj.com -- CHASE, KURSHAN, HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC.

JERRY VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff, represented by PETER J. KURSHAN,
CHASE, KURSHAN, HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC.

HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, represented by REBECCA
BRAZZANO -- Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE
LLP.

KIMBALL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW B.
JOSEPH -- Andrew.Joseph@dbr.com -- DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP,
BRIANNA ELIZABETH KOSTECKA -- Brianna.Kostecka@dbr.com -- DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH LLP & WILLIAM AUSTIN WRIGHT --
William.Wright@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH.

COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW
B. JOSEPH, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP, BRIANNA ELIZABETH
KOSTECKA, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP & WILLIAM AUSTIN WRIGHT,
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH.

BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW B. JOSEPH,
DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP, BRIANNA ELIZABETH KOSTECKA, DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH LLP & WILLIAM AUSTIN WRIGHT, DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH.

OCEAN MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, represented by J. BARRY
COCOZIELLO -- bcocoziello@podvey.com -- PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACCI,
HILDNER, COCOZIELLO & CHATTMAN PC & REBECCA BRAZZANO --
Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE LLP

JERSEY SHORE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, represented by
J. BARRY COCOZIELLO, PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACCI, HILDNER,
COCOZIELLO & CHATTMAN PC & REBECCA BRAZZANO, THOMPSON HINE LLP.

MERIDIAN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, represented by J. BARRY
COCOZIELLO, PODVEY, MEANOR, CATENACCI, HILDNER, COCOZIELLO &
CHATTMAN PC & REBECCA BRAZZANO, THOMPSON HINE LLP.


IDT ENERGY: Removed "Ferrare" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ferrare v. IDT Energy, Inc., Case
No. 140301717, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas
Philadelphia to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04658-AB to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Anthony Ferrare was one of
thousands of Pennsylvanians, who have been victimized by a "bait
and switch" scheme allegedly perpetrated by IDT, an energy supply
company.  Mr. Ferrare contends that contrary to IDT's promise, he
paid IDT more than double of what he had been paying his local
utility for the same electric service.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Three Logan Square
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 241-5476
          Facsimile: (251) 851-1420
          E-mail: mgoldich@reedsmith.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Shareholder Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published
an opinion affirming the district court's order dismissing an
amended complaint in Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No.
CV10-3451, according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against seven of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008 and
January 7, 2009. The complaint alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On February
15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed
lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended complaint was filed on
April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar to the
allegations. On May 23, 2011, a motion was filed to dismiss the
amended complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and
the action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to
file an amended complaint.  On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint.  The allegations contained therein
were substantially similar to the allegations in the prior
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 13, 2011. A hearing occurred on February 16,
2012, and on May 22, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion.
The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and a final judgment
was entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012. On June 20,
2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal was styled
Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
et al., No. 12-16430.  Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on
September 28, 2012. The Company filed an answering brief on
November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December
17, 2012.  Oral argument was held on March 14, 2014, and the
matter was taken under submission. On July 16, 2014, the Ninth
Circuit published an opinion affirming the district court's order
dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs will
have 14 days from entry of judgment to seek rehearing or rehearing
en banc.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks to Junk Amended Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss an amended
complaint in In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's July 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain
material facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. On November 18, 2013, the Court appointed
Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead
plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Sued in La. Over da Vinci Surgical System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action pending in Louisiana state court, seeking
damages on behalf of all patients who were allegedly injured by
the da Vinci Surgical System at a single hospital in Louisiana,
according to the company's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 95
individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and
federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family
member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci
Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and,
in some cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has
also received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements.
In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action filed in Louisiana state court, and removed
to federal court, seeking damages on behalf of all patients who
were allegedly injured by the da Vinci Surgical System at a single
hospital in Louisiana. The Company has also been named as a
defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state
court, seeking damages on behalf of 17 patients who had da Vinci
surgeries in 11 different states. The cases raise a variety of
allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs'
injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical
System and/or failure on the Company's part to provide adequate
training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed
plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company
failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential
risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs
also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example,
strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence,
fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust
enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for
alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages.
The Company has reached confidential settlements in a small number
of filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor
case, the remaining cases generally are in the early stages of
pretrial activity.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in well-funded national
advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci
surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims
relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with
certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments
that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a
market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the
subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a
significant number of claims from plaintiffs' attorneys as a
result of these advertising efforts. In an effort to avoid the
expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the
Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable
statutes of limitations for the claims, and engaged in
confidential mediation efforts. The attorneys for the patients
agreed to collect and supply medical records, operative notes and
other necessary information from these patients to the Company.
Each claim was individually investigated. The collection and
evaluation of the patients' medical information was laborious. For
hundreds of the asserted claims, the Company has never received
medical records. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 2,300 sets of
patient records have been received and evaluated. To evaluate
these claims, the Company, assisted by independent medical
consultants, reviewed and analyzed the large volumes of medical
information that began to arrive in the fall of 2013. The
completion of the legal and medical evaluation of a significant
number of these claims occurred during the first quarter of 2014
and continued throughout the second quarter of 2014.

During the three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company recorded
an additional pre-tax charge of $9.6 million to reflect the
estimate of the cost of resolving a number of the product
liability claims received. After an extended confidential
mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants,
the Company determined during the first quarter of 2014 that,
while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and
risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be
appropriate. The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of
resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for
patients who have participated in the mediation process.  To date,
approximately 4,400 claims have been added to the tolling
agreements and/or submitted into the mediation program. Of those,
however, over 2,500 claims have voluntarily been removed from the
tolling agreement and/or mediation program and plaintiffs'
counsels have indicated to the Company that they no longer intend
to pursue these claims. Nonetheless, the claimants that have been
removed from the tolling agreement remain free to pursue lawsuits
against the Company and it is also possible that more claims will
be made by other individuals who have undergone da Vinci surgery
and allege that they suffered injuries. It is further possible
that the claimants who participate in the mediations, as well as
those claimants who have not participated in negotiations, will
choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law.

Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on
many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost
associated with these product liability claims may be materially
different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial position, and future results of operations.  Although
there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the
amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized
at this time. As of June 30, 2014, a total of $72.4 million was
included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the product
liability claims.


JAN K OVERWEEL: Recalls Luigi Guffanti 1876 Burrata di Corato
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 23, 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:           Jan K Overweel Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9125

Jan K Overweel Ltd. is recalling certain Italian cheeses from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described.

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.

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.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (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.


JCB TRADING: Recalls Good Day and Kapal Api Grande Coffee Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           JCB Trading Company
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9111


KENNIE MACWILLIAMS: Recalls Oysters Due to Vibrio Parahaemolyticus
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kennie MacWilliams Seafoods Ltd.
Distribution:             Prince Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9054

Affected products: Oysters with code of Area No. PE 7F July 8,
2014


KTIMA REST: Faces "Hirsch" Suit in N.Y. Alleging ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Ktima Rest., Inc., a New York corporation, d/b/a
La Parisienne Diner, and 200 West 58th Street LLC, a New York
limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-06246-WHP (S.D.N.Y.,
August 7, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff personally visited the
Defendants' property in New York City, but was denied full and
equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities
at the Defendants' Property because of certain violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hirsch is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Ktima Rest., Inc., a New York corporation doing business as La
Parisienne Diner, and 200 West 58th Street LLC, a New York limited
liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


LA FROMAGERIE: Recalls Rhone-Alpes Cheese Due to E. Coli
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           La Fromagerie Hamel
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9115

La Fromagerie Hamel is recalling La fromagerie Hamel brand
"St-Felicien lait cru France (Rhone-Alpes)" cheese from the
marketplace due to possible E. coli O26:H11 contamination.
Consumers 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.

Food contaminated with E. coli O26:H11 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  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 a recall in another country.  The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (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.


LIGHT CELLAR: Recalls Super Foods Truly Raw & Organic Carob Powder
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Light Cellar Awakened Living Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9118

Affected products: 1 lb Light Cellar Super Foods Truly Raw &
Organic Carob Powder with Lot 001-14


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Mary's Organic Crackers Due to Almonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9083

Affected products: 184 g. Mary's Organic Crackers Original
Crackers with 8 97580 00010 6 UPC


LOUISIANA: Schedler Obtains Partial Summary Judgment Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brian A. Jackson entered a ruling and order
on July 30, 2014, in the case entitled KENNETH HALL v. STATE OF
LOUISIANA, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00657-BAJ-RLB, (M.D. La.),
granting in part and denying in part, a motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendant Tom Schedler.  A copy of the ruling is
available at http://is.gd/d4osFEfrom Leagle.com.

According to the Court, the Plaintiff's (a) First Amendment claim
against Defendant Mr. Schedler is dismissed, with prejudice, (b)
Fourteenth Amendment vote dilution claim against Mr. Schedler is
dismissed, with prejudice, (c) Fifteenth Amendment vote dilution
claim against Mr. schedler is dismissed, with prejudice.

The Court denied Mr. Schedler's request that the Court dismiss (i)
Mr. Hall's Section 1983 claim against Mr. Schedler, (ii) Kenneth
Hall's Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 claim against
Mr. Schedler; (iii) Kenneth Hall's claims against Mr. Schedler on
the basis that Mr. Schedler cannot grant Hall the relief he seeks.

Mr. Schedler's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Action by
Plaintiff-Intervenor, Byron Sharper is denied in part and granted
in part.

Mr. Schedler's Motion to Strike Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
for Summary Judgment was denied.

Kenneth Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Ray Johnson, Ron
Johnson and Associates, Joel Gerard Porter & Stephen M. Irving,
Steve Irving LLC.

State of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Patricia Hill
Wilton, Louisiana Department of Justice, Angelique Duhon Freel,
Louisiana Department of Justice, Jessica Marie Field Thornhill,
Louisiana Dept. Of Justice, Madeline S. Carbonette, Department of
Justice & William P. Bryan, III, Attorney General's Office.

Piyush Jindal, Defendant, represented by Patricia Hill Wilton,
Louisiana Department of Justice, Angelique Duhon Freel, Louisiana
Department of Justice, Jessica Marie Field Thornhill, Louisiana
Dept. Of Justice, Madeline S. Carbonette, Department of Justice &
William P. Bryan, III, Attorney General's Office.

James D Buddy Caldwell, Defendant, represented by Patricia Hill
Wilton, Louisiana Department of Justice, Angelique Duhon Freel,
Louisiana Department of Justice, Jessica Marie Field Thornhill,
Louisiana Dept. Of Justice, Madeline S. Carbonette, Department of
Justice & William P. Bryan, III, Attorney General's Office.

Tom Schedler, Defendant, represented by Edmond Wade Shows, Shows,
Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLp, Elizabeth Everett, Shows, Cali &
Walsh, LLP, Grant Joseph Guillot, Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P. &
John Carroll Walsh, Shows. Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP.

City of Baton Rouge, Defendant, represented by Christina Berthelot
Peck, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Ashley
Walton Beck, East Baton Rouge Parish Attorney's Office, Mary E.
Roper & Sarah Shannahan Monsour, Parish Attorney's Office.

Parish of East Baton Rouge, Defendant, represented by Christina
Berthelot Peck, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff &
McCollister, Ashley Walton Beck, East Baton Rouge Parish
Attorney's Office, Mary E. Roper & Sarah Shannahan Monsour, Parish
Attorney's Office.

Melvin Kip Holden, Defendant, represented by Christina Berthelot
Peck, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Ashley
Walton Beck, East Baton Rouge Parish Attorney's Office, Mary E.
Roper & Sarah Shannahan Monsour, Parish Attorney's Office.

Charles Kleckley, Representative, Objector, represented by Emily
Andrews, Department of Justice, State of Louisiana.

John A. Alario, Jr., Senator, Objector, represented by Emily
Andrews, Department of Justice, State of Louisiana.

Lane Grigsby, Objector, represented by David A. Lowe, Keegan,
DeNicola, Kiesel, Bagwell, Juban & Lowe, LLC & Kyle M. Keegan,
Keegan, DeNicola, Kiesel, Bagwell, Juban & Lowe, LLC.

Byron Sharper, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Ray
Johnson, Ron Johnson and Associates, Joel Gerard Porter & Stephen
M. Irving, Steve Irving LLC.


LYFT: Drivers' Wage-and-Hour Claims Can't Proceed
-------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has ruled Lyft drivers cannot bring class wage-and-hour claims
against the company, in an order likely to set up the issue for
appeal.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of drivers they
claim were misclassified as contractors and denied minimum wage
and other rights.  But the two named plaintiffs drove for the
ride-share company exclusively in California and are seeking
judgment under California employment laws.  Therefore, they cannot
represent drivers in other states, U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria ruled on Aug. 7 in the Northern District of California.

"California wage and hour laws asserted here simply do not apply
to employees who work exclusively in another state," he wrote.
"Therefore, regardless of the connection between Lyft and
California, Lyft drivers who worked in other states cannot bring
claims under California's wage and hour statutes."

Plaintiffs attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston firm Lichten &
Liss-Riordan was puzzled by the order, which contradicts a
favorable ruling she received last year from a judge right down
the hallway in a similar case.

"Ultimately, I think it's going to be taken up by a higher court
in California," she said.

Ms. Liss-Riordan also represents a nationwide class of Uber
Technologies Inc. drivers who claim they were misclassified as
contractors and stiffed on tips and expenses.  In 2013, U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen ruled out-of-state drivers have valid
California claims because Uber's licensing agreement specifies
disagreements will be resolved according to California law.

While Uber argued the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause
prohibits states from regulating commercial activities beyond
their boundaries, Chen said "applying a state's law to conduct for
which parties have chosen to be bound by that state's law through
contract does not violate the Commerce Clause."

Lyft's contract stipulates the same.  But Judge Chhabria ruled
plaintiffs' claims do not stem from the contract or involve
interpretation of the contract's terms, so they are not governed
by the choice-of-law provision.

Even if the claims were covered, he continued, the choice of law
would be moot.  The California Labor Code limits application of
its laws to within the state.

"It does not apply extraterritorially," Judge Chhabria wrote.
"Parties cannot, by contract, extend its reach."

Lyft is represented by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart.
Founding shareholder Thomas McInerney -- tmm@ogletreedeakins.com
-- referred questions to a Lyft spokeswoman, who called the ruling
"well-reasoned and thoughtful."

Ms. Liss-Riordan said she respectfully disagrees with the court's
analysis.

"It's interesting Judge Chhabria didn't cite to Judge Chen's
decision in the Uber case," she said, "which seems a little odd
given that Judge Chen addressed the exact same question in Uber."


MAIN STREET PHARMACY: Sued Over Contaminated Steroid Injection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that an
orthopedic patient is suing a pharmacy she claims provided her
healthcare provider with a contaminated steroid that was injected
into her knee after which she suffered numerous side effects.

Gail Scott-Gillespie filed suit against Main Street Pharmacy in
the 24th Judicial District Court on June 25.

Ms. Scott-Gillespie claims haw received an injection of a steroid
injection in her knee from Southern Orthopaedic Specialists and
that after she received the injection she received a skin rash,
loss of appetite, vomiting, diarrhea, generalized nausea and
insomnia.  The plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2013 she
received a letter from Southern Orthopaedic Specialists alerting
her that the steroids she had received were the subject of a
recall due to contamination and had been suspected by the Food and
Drug Administration in connection with infections that had
occurred elsewhere.  Ms. Scott-Gillespie asserts the product was
produced and distributed by Main Street Pharmacy.

The defendant is accused of creating an unreasonably dangerous
drug, failing to adequately warn physicians and consumers that the
drug was dangerous, breach of warranty and producing a defective
drug.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, disability, emotional distress, medical monitoring,
medical expenses, loss of life's pleasures, loss of earnings and
loss of earning capacity.

Scott-Gillespie is represented by Nora R. Udell of New Orleans-
based Kara Hadican Samuels & Associates LLC.

The case has been assigned to Division P Judge Lee V. Faulkner Jr.
Case no. 739-757.


MALABAR SUPER: Recalls Custom Spice Mix STSSEC-006
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Malabar Super Spice Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    9092

Affected products: 0.950 kg Malabar Super Spice Co. Ltd. Custom
Spice Mix STSSE-006


MCDONALD'S CORP: NLRB's Wage-and-Hour Ruling Gets Mixed Reactions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the National Labor Relations Board's general counsel raised plenty
of eyebrows when he announced he'd levy workers' wage-and-hour
claims against McDonald's itself, not just the employer-
franchisees.  But New Jersey lawyers aren't in agreement about
what impact it'll have and when.

Richard Griffin Jr. -- who as general counsel acts as prosecutor
of employee grievances deemed meritorious -- announced July 29
that he has authorized complaints that will name McDonald's USA as
a joint employer respondent if settlements aren't achieved.

"I don't think it's going to have a radical impact in the short
term," said Domenick Carmagnola, the immediate past president of
the New Jersey State Bar Association's labor and employment law
section.  "It's getting a lot of buzz because they did something
that's pretty uncommon."

The joint-employer standard requires that, in order for a
franchisor to be implicated in an employee action, it must exert
significant control over the terms and conditions of employment.
Courts use various factors to make that determination.

"We haven't seen anything in writing," said Jed Marcus, who co-
chairs the labor and employment law practice group at Bressler,
Amery & Ross in Florham Park, N.J.  "Right now it's hard for
anybody to opine what all this means . . . because we don't know
what the theory is."

"My best guess is . . . they're trying to expand it by drawing the
line in a different place" in order to loosen the joint-employer
standard, added Mr. Marcus, who represents employers in NLRB and
other matters.

Mr. Griffin had signaled this move was coming.  In May, the NLRB,
in connection with another matter, invited amicus briefs on
whether the joint-employer standard should be revisited.  He
appears to be pushing for consideration of the "totality of
circumstances" to establish control.

Mr. Carmagnola, who also represents employers, agreed with
Mr. Marcus that adjudicating any new approach to the joint-
employer standard would take years.

"McDonald's is not going to let this stop at the NLRB stage," said
Mr. Carmagnola, of Carmagnola & Ritardi in Morristown, N.J.  "This
will go to the circuit court and beyond."

Even if unsuccessful in court, McDonald's and other franchisors
could revise their franchise agreements to make clear that
franchisees must indemnify them if they're named in an employee
action, he added.

"I don't see a change in the liability in the end," Mr. Carmagnola
said.

Mr. Griffin's announcement came on the heels of employee protests
outside the company's suburban Chicago headquarters in May as part
of the "Fight for 15" movement, which seeks a $15-per-hour wage
for fast-food workers and the right to form a union without
retaliation.

The response from McDonald's and other critics of Mr. Griffin's
announcement, such as the International Franchise Association,
were of a different tenor: They called it an overreach and an
affront to decades of legal precedent restricting when parent
corporations may be brought into employee disputes.  And indeed,
the company did promise to challenge any effort to prosecute wage
claims against it.

Todd Leff, president and CEO of Hamilton, N.J.-based spa
franchisor Hand & Stone, echoed that sentiment, saying
Mr. Griffin's action "upends 40 years of franchise law on the
common-law side" and is "a very scary prospect both for
franchisors and franchisees."

"I think this is a very significant change in position...if it
gets adopted," he said.

Though the threat to franchisors is clear, a loosened standard
also could mean increased liability for the franchisees, most of
whom are small businesses, Mr. Leff said.  He isn't Hand & Stone's
general counsel, but is a former senior trial attorney for the
U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and former GC and
CEO to Cottman Transmission, an auto repair franchisor.

Mr. Carmagnola said Mr. Griffin's action is partly an effort to
make the NLRB more relevant in an age of dwindling unionization.
Mr. Marcus added that the NLRB in recent years has "sought to
expand [its] scope to include nonunionized employees who they
claim are engaged in protected activities."

The NLRB "wants to become the representative of nonunion
employees. . . . This is just another example of that," he said.
He pointed to court reversals of NLRB holdings, including one from
last December, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the use of class or collective action waivers in
arbitration agreements.  The NLRB had deemed those waivers
violative of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),
which preserves workers' rights to engage in "protected concerted
activity," such as petitioning management for better pay or
working conditions.

East Brunswick, N.J.-based solo Mitchell Schley, who represents
plaintiffs in NLRB and other employment matters, agreed with
Mr. Leff that the move is largely political, and called it "a very
major change."

"A lot of it has to do with politics -- let's be frank," Mr.
Schley said, pointing out that, because the GC and board members
are appointed by the president, their policies and decisions sway
with the administration's.  "You have to expect a certain amount
of change."

Under Mr. Griffin, a former union lawyer, dozens of employee
grievances that normally would have been handled by regional
offices were centralized, said Mr. Schley, previously a trial
lawyer and supervising attorney in the NLRB's Newark office.

Mr. Schley naturally took a very different view from the other
attorneys, calling the development "extremely positive for workers
in this country" and a change in "the ability of employees to
obtain better terms and conditions of employment."

He agreed that litigating the issue will take years, but "the fact
that he's willing to [charge McDonald's] is, itself, important,"
Mr. Schley said.  "If you don't have step one, you don't have step
two, three and four."

Mr. Schley took issue with the notion that the NLRB is out of its
element in taking on nonunion disputes.  "It's their expertise;
it's the heart of their expertise," he said, noting that NLRA
Section 7 empowers employees to approach management for changes in
working conditions whether or not they're unionized.

Complaints first go to a federal administrative law judge, then to
the NLRB and, if necessary, to a federal circuit court and
potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Schley said it's a long process that will benefit the labor
and employment bar.

"Instead of complaining, they should all be chipping in for the
biggest gift to the GC," Mr. Schley said.  "He has provided them,
over the next 10 years, with a breathless amount of billable
hours."

Mr. Marcus -- a founder and officer of the Academy of New Jersey
Management Attorneys -- acknowledged that "obviously this could
result in more work for employment lawyers."

"It's undoubtedly going to create more litigation, but in the end,
we do better when our clients do well."


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Ellis" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Ellis v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-003394-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02614-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Stephanie Ellis alleges that she was injured by her
physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek
USA, Inc.'s Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion
Device.  Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design,
manufacturing method, and labeling were specifically approved by
the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's
Premarket Approval process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Renfro, Esq.
          BECKER LAW OFFICE
          9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 581-1122
          E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Turner W. Branch, Esq.
          Margaret M. Branch, Esq.
          Adam T. Funk, Esq.
          BRANCH LAW FIRM
          2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 243-3500
          E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  afunk@branchlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-4662
          E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
                  mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Montague" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Montague v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-003395-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02616-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Ralph Montague alleges that he was injured by his
physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek
USA, Inc.'s Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion
Device.  Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design,
manufacturing method, and labeling were specifically approved by
the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's
Premarket Approval process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Renfro, Esq.
          BECKER LAW OFFICE
          9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 581-1122
          E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MERCEDES BENZ: Removed "Gomes" Suit to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Gomes, et al. v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, et
al., Case No. ESX-L4552-14, was removed from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04979-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the car rims manufactured and
distributed by the Defendants are defective because the rims
failed under normal driving conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliott Malone, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT MALONE, ESQ., LLC
          720 E. Palisade Ave., Suite 102
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 608-5221
          Facsimile: (866) 382-6287
          E-mail: em@emalonelaw.com

Defendants Mercedes Benz USA, LLC is represented by:

          Robert M. Cook, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          902 Carnegie Center, Suite 100
          Princeton, NJ 08540-6530
          Telephone: (609) 986-1300
          Facsimile: (609) 986-1301
          E-mail: rcook@goldbergsegalla.com

Defendant Bridgestone Americas, INC., is represented by:

          Amy L. Hansell, Esq.
          WARD GREENBERG
          701 East Gate Drive, Suite 220
          Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 797-5783
          Facsimile: (856) 866-8761
          E-mail: ahansell@wardgreenberg.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: To Appeal O'Bannon Likeness Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marot, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Mark Emmert said on Aug. 10 that college sports' largest governing
body will appeal the federal court's Aug. 8 decision that gives
athletes a right to some of the millions of dollars they help
generate.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled on Aug. 8 that the NCAA
must allow football players in FBS schools and Division I men's
basketball players at least $5,000 a year for rights to their
names, images and likenesses, money that would be put in a trust
fund and given to them when they leave school

In his first public comments since the ruling, Mr. Emmert said on
ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" that the NCAA would
appeal "at least in part."

Many legal experts expected the NCAA to appeal and say the case
could wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.


NATIONAL IMPORTERS: Recalls Shore Lunch Soup Mixes Due to Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           National Importers Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New
                          Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador,
                          Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward
                          Island, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9069


NORTHPORTEAST NORTHPORT: Ct. Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Conway" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein denied in its entirety a
motion to dismiss the case captioned MONA CONWAY, Individually and
on behalf of her son K.C.G., a child with a disability and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
NORTHPORTEAST NORTHPORT SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARYLOU McDERMOTT, in her
individual and official capacity as Superintendent of Schools,
CHRISTINA PULASKI, in her individual and official capacity as
Director of Special Education, IRENE McLAUGHLIN, in her individual
and official capacity as Principal of NORTHPORT HIGH SCHOOL,
DENISE KEENAN, in her individual and official capacity as Vice-
Principal, TERRENCE HINSON, in his individual and official
capacity as Chairperson of Guidance, and REGINA THOMAS, in her
individual and official capacity as Guidance Counselor,
Defendants, NO. 13-CV-5283 (SJF)(WDW), (E.D. N.Y.).

Mona Conway commenced this action on on September 23, 2013, on
behalf of herself and her son, K.C.G.2, alleging violations of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973; and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  The School
District and individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim for relief.

A copy of Judge Feuerstein's August 1, 2014 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/s1o7Jjfrom Leagle.com.

Mona Conway, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Board of Education of Northport East Northport School District,
Defendant, represented by Christopher F. Venator --
cvenator@ingermansmith.com -- Ingerman Smith, LLP.

Marylou McDermott, Defendant, represented by Christopher F.
Venator, Ingerman Smith, LLP.

Christina Pulaski, Defendant, represented by Christopher F.
Venator, Ingerman Smith, LLP.

Irene McLaughlin, Defendant, represented by Christopher F.
Venator, Ingerman Smith, LLP.

Denise Keenan, Defendant, represented by Christopher F. Venator,
Ingerman Smith, LLP.

Terrence Hinson, Defendant, represented by Christopher F. Venator,
Ingerman Smith, LLP.

Regina Thomas, Defendant, represented by Christopher F. Venator,
Ingerman Smith, LLP.


ONITY INC: Hotels' Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson dismissed with prejudice the
consolidated class action complaint captioned U.S. Hotel and
Resort Management, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Onity, Inc.,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 13-1499 (SRN/FLN), (D. Minn.).

The Plaintiffs purchased and installed in their hotels one or both
of two particular models of locks manufactured and sold by the
Defendant.  The Plaintiffs allege that certain models of
Defendant's locks that were installed in their hotels "currently
suffer from critical defects that allow the locks to be readily
opened" by unauthorized persons.

Onity filed the motion to dismiss the case saying the Plaintiffs
lack standing to bring this action and that, even if they would
have standing, the Complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.

Judge Nelson, in a memorandum opinion and order dated July 30,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dSx1Ntfrom
Leagle.com, concluded that the Plaintiffs lack standing, and thus
the Court lacks jurisdiction.

"There is no distinction between a group of those hotels that have
incurred injury already and a group that merely fears potential
future injury, as none of Plaintiffs have suffered any actual
present harm insofar as the locks still function," he said.
"Moreover, the defect has not caused any present economic loss
comparable to the decreased resale value addressed in Cole.
Rather, any costs Plaintiffs already have incurred is due to their
anticipation of future injury, which could occur only if and when
a third party circumvents the locks."

Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- and J.
Gordon Rudd, Jr. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, 1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth St., Minneapolis, MN 55402;
James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- and Swathi
Bojedla -- sbojedla@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, 1700 K Street
NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 2006; Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- and Hal D. Cunningham --
hcunningham@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,
The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave., 40th Floor, New York,
NY 10174, for Plaintiffs.

Cooper S. Ashley -- cooper.ashley@maslon.com -- and Michael C.
McCarthy -- mike.mccarthy@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman Borman &
Brand, LLP, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh St.,
Minneapolis, MN 55402; Scott L. Winkelman --
swinkelman@crowell.com -- Clifford J. Zatz -- czatz@crowell.com --
and Rebecca Baden Chaney -- rchaney@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004, for
Defendant.


PACCAR: Recalls Certain Models Due to Broken Electrical Connection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           224
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014305
TC ID number:             2014305
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14KWH/714-G

On certain trucks equipped with Sure Power power distribution
modules, excessive play in electrical connections may result in
unexpected loss of exterior lighting, anti-lock braking system
and/or windshield wipers, as well as engine shutdown.  These
issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property.

Dealers will install connector securement devices.

Affected products:

  Maker         Model    Model year(s) affected
  -----         -----    ----------------------
  PETERBILT     320      2012, 2013, 2014
  PETERBILT     210      2012, 2013, 2014
  PETERBILT     220      2012, 2013, 2014
  KENWORTH      K300     2012, 2013, 2014


PAN ASIA: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish,
                          Allergen - Fish, Allergen - Other,
                          Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9102

Affected products: 80 g. Gosomi Cracker with all codes where
sulphites are not declared on the label


PANASONIC CORP: Capacitors Actions Consolidated in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Chip-Tech, Ltd. and Dependable Component Supply Corp.
asked and received an order from the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferring to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California three lawsuits as
well as any later-filled cases that assert similar or related
claims, thereby, centralizing all these cases for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The three lawsuits are:

   (1) Chip-Tech, Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation, et al.
       (N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:14-03264-JD);

   (2) Dependable Component Supply Corp. v. Panasonic
       Corporation, et al. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:14-cv-03300-JD);
       and

   (3) eIQ Energy Inc. v. AVX Corporation, et al. (D.N.J.
       Case No. 2:14-cv-04826-ESMAH)

The consolidated multidistrict litigation is captioned IN RE:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2574.

The Capacitors Actions allege a multi-year transnational price-
fixing cartel among competitors in the capacitors manufacturing
industry against an overlapping group of Defendants including
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America;
Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd.; Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.)
Corporation; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc.; NEC
TOKIN Corporation; NEC TOKIN America, Inc.; KEMET Corporation;
KEMET Electronics Corporation; Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation;
United Chemi-Con Corporation; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi
AIC Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd.; Nichicon
Corporation; Nichicon (America) Corporation; AVX Corporation;
Rubycon Corporation; Rubycon America Inc.; Elna Co., Ltd.; Elna
America Inc.; Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; Matsuo Electronics of
America, Inc.; Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd.; Vishay Intertechnology,
Inc.; Samsung Electro-Mechanics; Samsung Electro-Mechanics
America, Inc.; ROHM Co., Ltd.; ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC; TDK
Corporation; TDK-EPC Corporation; and TDK U.S.A. Corporation.

To date, no other capacitors-related cartel cases have been filed
in any other court, though it is likely that a number of copycat
complaints will be filed in the near term alleging essentially the
same claims and seeking the same relief sought as pleaded in the
Chip-Tech and Dependable Actions, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
                  cdirksen@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  rgordon@bm.net

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 519-8306
          Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0211
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Tosses Election Workers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a class action composed of Philadelphia election workers claiming
they were covered by the city's minimum-wage ordinance has been
thrown out by a common pleas court judge.

In an order, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Frederica
Massiah-Jackson dismissed the plaintiffs' action filed against the
city of Philadelphia and the County Board of Elections.

The plaintiffs in Grubel v. County Board of Elections said they
were entitled to be paid in accordance with Philadelphia's
minimum-wage requirement.  Judge Massiah-Jackson wrote in her
opinion that the wage ordinance mandates that "covered employers"
must pay their employees hourly at least 150 percent of the
federal minimum wage.

Alice Ballard, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said election
judges are paid roughly $7.14 per hour and all other election
personnel are paid roughly $6.70 per hour, several dollars short
of the city's $10.88 hourly minimum wage.

The class in Grubel, according to Judge Massiah-Jackson, was
composed of the judge of elections, majority inspector, minority
inspector, clerk, machine operator, overseer and bilingual
interpreter.

Judge Massiah-Jackson said election workers' pay is handled under
the Pennsylvania Election Code, reasoning that the election
workers are not covered under the city's minimum-wage ordinance.

"Election officers, as defined by the statute, and all members of
the plaintiff-class, are performing their duties consistent with
the state constitution," Judge Massiah-Jackson said.  "Election
Day workers perform their duties to further the legislature's
express intention to maintain uniformity of all elections
throughout the commonwealth. Uniformity includes the manner of
calculating compensation."

The Election Code sets the minimum and maximum dollar amounts to
be paid out by the county boards of elections, Judge Massiah-
Jackson said, noting that the compensation ranges for each
election officer are fixed by the legislature for all counties.
Those payments are made in per diem lump sums.

The defendants contended that there was an irreconcilable conflict
between the Election Code and the wage ordinance, Judge Massiah-
Jackson said.  She added that if the city's wage ordinance were
applicable in this case, not only would workers in Philadelphia be
paid differently than in the rest of the state, they would also be
paid differently within the city.

"In certain wards and divisions with high voter turnout, the
evening tally may take longer to complete.  Those workers would
receive greater pay for longer work hours," Judge Massiah-Jackson
said. "The wards and divisions with low turnout will find fewer
individuals willing to be elected or to work on Election Day
because those workers will receive less pay."

Therefore, Judge Massiah-Jackson said, the state legislation
preempts the local wage ordinance.

The plaintiffs also claimed that anyone who works for the city is
entitled to the city's minimum wage; however, the defendants
argued that the ordinance defines a minimum-wage beneficiary as
someone who works for a covered employer out of a "service
contract, city financial aid, the grant of a city lease,
concession or franchise, or a funding agreement with a public
agency," according to Judge Massiah-Jackson.

Based on that definition, Judge Massiah-Jackson said, "No members
of the plaintiff-class are entitled to benefit from the
Philadelphia 21st Century Minimum Wage Standard Ordinance.  The
Philadelphia City Council did not include the Election Day workers
within the definition of covered employees."

Diane Loebell of the city of Philadelphia Law Department said her
office was pleased with Judge Massiah-Jackson's ruling.

"The case had been listed for trial several times and I was always
of the view that it involved questions of law, not fact, and that
a jury trial was not appropriate," Ms. Loebell said.

According to Ms. Loebell, the plaintiffs have appealed the ruling
to the Commonwealth Court.

Ballard said election workers put in 14-hour days and haven't seen
a raise in about 15 years.

"These folks keep our elections fair and honest; we owe them more
for what they do," Ballard said, adding, "We have great respect
for Judge Massiah-Jackson, but we disagree with her opinion and we
think the Commonwealth Court will see it our way."


POLFOOD TRADING: Recalls Knorr Fix Spaghetti Due to Undeclared Egg
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Polfood Trading Co.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9089

Affected products: 43 g. Knorr Fix Spaghett with 5 900300 512294
UPC


PORSCHE: Recalls 918 Spyder Model Due to Defective Control Arms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           1
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014319
TC ID number:             2014319
Manufacturer recall
number:                   AE03

On certain vehicles, rear longitudinal and transverse control arms
may not meet specifications and could break, affecting vehicle
control.  This could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace affected control arms.

Affected products: 2015 Porsche


ROCK CREEK: Halts Sales of Anatabloc to Sort Out FDA Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the dietary supplement maker at
the center of a federal trial of former Virginia Gov. Bob
McDonnell and his wife is halting sales of its product called
Anatabloc.

Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals Inc. said on Aug. 11 it is voluntarily
stopping sales of Anatabloc and another supplement called CigRx
while it sorts out issues with the Food and Drug Administration.

Late last year, the federal agency sent a warning letter to the
company formerly known as Star Scientific saying that its products
contain a new dietary ingredient that requires approval before it
can be marketed.  The company did not seek such approval.

The agency also said the company's website had improperly promoted
Anatabloc as a drug by suggesting it can be used to treat various
diseases, including ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis and
Alzheimer's disease.

The company, which since changed its name and moved its
headquarters to Sarasota, Florida, first began selling Anatabloc
in August 2011 online and over the telephone before it was put on
shelves at nutritional supplement retailers GNC.  A potential
class-action lawsuit naming both as defendants was filed in late
January in federal court in Illinois alleging false claims about
the supplement, which was being sold for $100 for 300 lozenges or
up to $300 for a series of facial creams.

On Aug. 11, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals said its net sales that are
primarily comprised of sales of Anatabloc fell 63 percent to $1.84
million in the first half of 2014 as it significantly reduced
promotion.  The company has operated at a loss for the last 11
years.

Over the last few years, the company has transitioned from the
maker of dissolvable tobacco products to a dietary supplement
maker.  As part of that move, former Star Scientific CEO Jonnie R.
Williams Sr. stepped down last December. The wealthy businessman
testified late last month in the corruption trial that he showered
the McDonnells with more than $165,000 in gifts and loans in
exchange for promoting his products.


SABORES LATINOS: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Undeclared Sesame
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sabores Latinos Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9100


SCHINDLER ELEVATOR: Dismissal of "McDonnell" Bias Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
John McDonnell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit from an order granting Schindler Elevator
Corporation and Jerry Spampanato's motion for summary judgment as
to all claims entered on July 16, 2014, by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. McDonnell was employed as an elevator maintenance and
repairman by Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation for more
than 30 years.  Schindler terminated his employment in September
2011.  He alleges he was terminated because of a physical
disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law.  He further alleges that his supervisor, Defendant
Gennaro "Jerry" Spampanato , affirmatively engaged in and assisted
the discrimination and is, therefore, liable as an aider and
abettor.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          David Zatuchni, Esq.
          ZATUCHNI & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          295 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 688-4122
          Facsimile: (646) 688-5539

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Michael J. DiMattia, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 548-7009
          Facsimile: (212) 715-2312
          E-mail: mdimattia@mcguirewoods.com

The appellate case is McDonnell v. Schindler Elevator Corporation,
et al., Case No. 14-2816, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  The trial court case is McDonnell v.
Schindler Elevator Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-04614-
VEC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


SEARS CANADA: Recalls Nevada Moccasins Due to High Level of Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 28, 2014
Posting date:             July 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40777

Affected products: Nevada Moccasins

The recall involves Nevada moccasins for infants and children in
black, yellow, and tan colors.  The moccasins can be identified by
the item number and sizes.

The recalled products can be identified by these:

   Colour      Item Number          Sizes
   ------      -----------          -----
   Black       18049 / 17482        1-5, 11-13
   Yellow      18051 / 17484        1-5, 11-13
   Tan         18052 / 17485        1-5, 11-13
   Tan         18046 / 18107        5-10

Testing by Sears Canada Inc. has indicated that the moccasins
contain a high concentration of lead.

Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada Inc. has received reports
of incidents or injuries related to this footwear.

Approximately 9,362 units of the recalled moccasins were sold in
Canada.

The moccasins were manufactured in China and sold from Jan. 1,
2014 to July 22, 2014 exclusively at Sears.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Top Moda
                    Hong Kong

   Retailer         Sears Canada Inc.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers are advised to not let their children wear the recalled
moccasins and should immediately take the affected product away
from them.


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish,
                          Allergen - Fish, Allergen - Other,
                          Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Seoul Trading Corporation (BC)
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9110


SOURDOUGH COUNTRY: Recalls Chocolate Macaroons Due to Sulphites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sourdough Country Bakery
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9059

Affected products: 414 g. Sourdough Country Bakery Chocolate
Macaroons with all Best Before dates up to and including 14.JL.16.


T-BROTHERS: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish,
                          Allergen - Fish, Allergen - Other,
                          Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9049


TARGET CORP: Lawyer to Assert RICO Claims in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the
multidistrict litigation against Target Corp. over last year's
massive data breach stumbled to the starting line, with the first
consolidated class action filed on Aug. 1.

The complaint was filed on behalf of thousands of financial
institutions asserting losses of as much as $18 billion when
hackers stole credit and debit card information and other personal
data affecting 110 million customers during the holiday season.
The costs were incurred in reissuing cards, reimbursing customers
and changing or canceling accounts.

Missing from the complaint were claims under the U.S. Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  Plaintiffs attorney
Richard Coffman -- rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com -- of The Coffman
Law Firm in Beaumont, Texas, who represents three financial
institutions, has been arguing in favor of bringing RICO claims,
and sought the court's permission to file individual lawsuits on
behalf of his clients rather than join the class action.

"Under these circumstances, there should be two separate
financial-institution complaints -- especially since case
leadership has not given any indication that they intend to assert
RICO claims in the consolidated class action complaint," he wrote
in a July 6 motion.

Charles "Bucky" Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- a
partner at Zimmerman Reed in Minneapolis who was appointed lead
counsel in the class action, opposed Mr. Coffman's request, as did
Target attorney Wendy Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- a
partner in Faegre Baker Daniels' Minneapolis office.  U.S.
District Judge Paul Magnuson denied Mr. Coffman's request on
July 25, in a footnote expressing "serious doubts" about the
validity of RICO claims.

Mr. Coffman did not respond to a request for comment.  In an email
to The National Law Journal, Mr. Zimmerman said: "If there is a
RICO claim, and our discovery indicates so, we will bring it
forward at the proper time."

A separate consolidated complaint filed on behalf of consumers,
who brought the bulk of the 140 cases against Target, is due on
Aug. 25.

Target, which named Brian Cornell as its new chief executive
officer on July 31, on Aug. 5 blamed $148 million in continuing
expenses related to the breach in part for what it said would be
disappointing news in its pending quarterly report.

In court, Target unsuccessfully sought to halt discovery in the
litigation until Judge Magnuson rules on its motions to dismiss,
which are due on Sept. 1 and Oct. 1.  In a July 3 motion,
Ms. Wildung said Target believes it has a "substantial likelihood"
of securing dismissal.  In a letter, she cited a July 14 decision
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissing a data-breach lawsuit against Michaels Stores Inc.

U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo ruled that the plaintiffs
couldn't show that they suffered direct "economic damage" from a
breach last year that compromised as many as 2.6 million customer
credit and debit numbers.  Plaintiffs in data-breach actions
against Barnes & Noble Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Sam's Club and Aetna
Inc. have faced similar rulings.

In a July 18 reply, Mr. Zimmerman brushed off the other cases,
saying it was "virtually certain" the Target litigation would
survive dismissal.  Judge Magnuson denied Target's request on
July 24, allowing discovery to begin next month.  Target spokesman
Molly Snyder declined to comment.

"Target reported recently their losses from the data breach and it
was significant," Mr. Zimmerman said.  "Now, through this
litigation, others who suffered losses we believe must and will be
fairly compensated.  That is our goal.  The court has now told us
the discovery will begin without further delay."


TE CONNECTIVITY: Sued Over Merger With Measurement Specialties
--------------------------------------------------------------
TE Connectivity Ltd. is facing a lawsuit over its entry into a
Merger Agreement with Measurement Specialties in June 2014,
according to TE Connectivity's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 27, 2014.

The company is aware that, subsequent to the announcement of the
entry into the Merger Agreement with Measurement Specialties in
June 2014, purported shareholders of Measurement Specialties filed
several putative class action complaints in New Jersey state court
against Measurement Specialties, its board of directors, TE
Connectivity, and TE Connectivity's merger subsidiary generally
alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties against Measurement
Specialties' board of directors in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and that TE
Connectivity and its merger subsidiary aided and abetted
Measurement Specialties' board of directors in the alleged breach
of the directors' fiduciary duties to Measurement Specialties'
shareholders. The actions generally seek to enjoin the
consummation of the transaction until the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty are cured and unspecified monetary damages. The
company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Sun-Bird Seasoning Mixes Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Tree of Life Canada ULC
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9105


TYLER PIPE: Judgment Motion in "Shamsnia" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, denied a motion for judgment on
the pleadings in MORTEZA SHAMSNIA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANACO; TYLER PIPE
COMPANY; and MCWANE, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01431-
ODW(VBKX), (C.D. Cal.).

This products-liability class action alleges that Defendants are
liable for defects in the casting of sewer pipes that leaked and
damaged Mr. Shamsnia's condominium unit. The proposed class is
made up of all individuals with an ownership interest in the
condominium units in Shamsnia's building. The Defendants filed a
motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in which the Defendants
contend that Mr. Shamsnia's claims are barred by the statute of
limitations.

A copy of Judge Wright's August 5, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/N1vSQZfrom Leagle.com.

Morteza Shamsnia, Plaintiff, represented by Gary J Gambel --
ggambel@mrsnola.com -- Murphy Rogers Sloss and Gambel, Jennifer N
Willis -- Jenniferwblaw@bellsouth.net -- Willis and Buckley APC,
Roy F Amedee, Jr, Roy F Amedee Law Offices & Wayne P Tate --
waynetate@otbtlaw.com -- Ostendorf Tate Barentt and Tagtmeyer LLP.

McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B Bell --
jbell@hillfarrer.com -- Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP & Scott Leroy
Gilmore -- sgilmore@hillfarrer.com -- Hill Farrer & Burrill.

ANACO, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B Bell, Hill Farrer and
Burrill LLP & Scott Leroy Gilmore, Hill Farrer & Burrill.

Tyler Pipe Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B Bell, Hill
Farrer and Burrill LLP & Scott Leroy Gilmore, Hill Farrer &
Burrill.


USG CORP: Pa. Court Sets Schedules in Wallboard Pricing MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has set a schedule requiring the parties in In re:
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437 to complete
fact discovery, and depositions, by October 31, 2014, and to
complete expert witness discovery by March 31, 2015, according to
USG Corporation's July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

In late 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum Company
were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged
conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on
wallboard. These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the
title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.
One group of plaintiffs in the litigation purports to represent a
class of entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United
States directly from any of the defendants or their affiliates
from January 1, 2012 to the present. On behalf of this alleged
direct purchaser class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, tripled under the antitrust laws, as well as pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. The second
group of plaintiffs purports to bring their claims and seek
damages on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard.
These indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek to certify a separate
class of persons or entities who from January 1, 2012 through the
present indirectly purchased wallboard in the United States from
the defendants or their affiliates for end use and not for resale.
The court has set a schedule requiring the parties in the Domestic
Drywall Antitrust Litigation to complete fact discovery, primarily
involving the production of documents and depositions, by October
31, 2014, and to complete expert witness discovery by March 31,
2015.

In the fall of 2013, similar lawsuits were filed in Quebec and
Ontario courts on behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada.
These Canadian lawsuits also name as defendants CGC Inc., a
subsidiary of USG Corporation, as well as other Canadian and U.S.
wallboard manufacturers. As with the U.S.-based lawsuits, the
plaintiffs in the Canadian lawsuits have not indicated the amount
of damages that they seek. No schedule has been set for completion
of pre-trial discovery in the Canadian lawsuits.
USG has denied the allegations made in these wallboard pricing
lawsuits. At this stage of the lawsuits, the company is not able
to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably possible loss or
range of reasonably possible losses. However, based on the
information known to the company, it believes these lawsuits will
not have a material effect on the company's results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Mary's Organic Crackers and Pretzels
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           UNFI Canada Grocery West
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9082

Affected products: Mary's Organic Crackers Original Crackers and
Sticks & Twigs Pretzels


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Scope of Confidentiality Pacts Limited
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part a motion to limit
the scope of confidentiality agreements signed by former employees
of Vocera Communications Inc. The motion was filed by the lead
plaintiff in the case captioned MICHAEL BRADO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VOCERA
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-3567 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.)  A copy of the Court's July 30, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/aDiDizfrom Leagle.com.

This action is a consolidation of two securities class actions
against Vocera Communications, Inc. ("Vocera"), which alleges that
Vocera misrepresented its profitability and that plaintiffs
consequently suffered losses when Vocera stock prices fell. Lead
Plaintiffs are the Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System
and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Lead Counsel is the New
York law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton"). A consolidated
complaint has yet to be filed.

During Plaintiffs' investigation into the facts, Labaton's
investigator interviewed a former Vocera Senior Director of
Internal Audit, Finance and Administration (the "Former
Employee"). The Former Employee provided internal Vocera documents
and other information relevant to Vocera's alleged wrongdoing.
Upon reviewing the documents, the investigator questioned whether
some of them might be subject to attorney-client privilege. The
documents and the investigator's notes from the interview were
sequestered and no attorney at Labaton reviewed them or
communicated with the investigator about their contents. The
documents are currently held by separate counsel retained by
Labaton.

Vocera reviewed the documents and determined that they were
internal Vocera documents containing what purports to be
confidential and proprietary information. Some may also contain
privileged communications. Vocera asserts the Former Employee
misappropriated the documents and breached his contractual
confidentiality obligations to Vocera by providing them to
Labaton's investigator. Vocera seeks return of the documents and
to bar their use by Plaintiffs prior to discovery effectively
prohibiting Plaintiffs from utilizing them in opposing to any
motion to dismiss under the PSLRA.

The Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to limit the scope of
confidentiality agreements signed by former Vocera employees and
for in camera review of documents.  The Plaintiffs asked the Court
to (1) invalidate Vocera's confidentiality agreements to the
extent they restrict employees from voluntarily cooperating with
Plaintiffs' investigation of this action; (2) conduct an in camera
review to seclude attorney-client privileged documents for return
to Vocera; and (3) impose a protective order that would govern the
use of any documents containing Vocera trade secrets.

Judge Chen denied the Plaintiffs' request to invalidate the
confidentiality agreements, but granted Plaintiffs permission to
use of the documents, subject to claims of privilege and a
protective order.

The Court denied Plaintiffs' requests that it adjudicate the
enforceability of the Confidentiality Agreements and that it
conduct an in camera review to seclude attorney-client privileged
documents for return to Vocera. These requests are moot in light
of the ruling, held Judge Chen. Furthermore, enforceability of the
Confidential Agreements is not a proper issue before the Court, he
added.

The Court further granted Plaintiffs' request that the deadline to
file the consolidated class-action complaint be tolled. The
deadline will be reset to 21 days after the production of the
documents and privilege log ordered, Judge Chen concluded.

Michael Brado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Amber L. Eck, Zeldes Haeggquist &
Eck, LLP, David R. Scott, Scott & Scott LLP, Joseph Daniel Cohen,
Scott Scott LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP & Stephen
J. Teti, Scott Scott LLP.

Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Joel H. Bernstein, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Joseph A. Fonti, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael
Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren Jay Robbins, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP & Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff,
represented by Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Joel H.
Bernstein, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Joseph A. Fonti, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael
Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren Jay Robbins, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP & Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Vocera Communications Inc, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Duden Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick
& West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Robert J. Zollars, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Brent D. Lang, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden Kevane,
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP,
Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie Solomon,
Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.
Martin J. Silver, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

William R. Zerella, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Brian D. Ascher, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden Kevane,
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP,
Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie Solomon,
Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.

John B. Grotting, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Jeffrey H. Hillebrand, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Howard E. Janzen, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

John N. McMullen, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden
Kevane, Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick &
West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie
Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West
LLP.

Hany M. Nada, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden Kevane,
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP,
Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie Solomon,
Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.

Donald F. Wood, Defendant, represented by Catherine Duden Kevane,
Fenwick & West LLP, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West LLP,
Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, Ronnie Solomon,
Fenwick and West LLP & Susan Samuels Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Norman J.
Blears, Sidley Austin LLP, Simona Gurevich Strauss, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Matthew James Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP.
Piper Jaffray & Co, Defendant, represented by Norman J. Blears,
Sidley Austin LLP, Simona Gurevich Strauss, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP & Matthew James Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP.

Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Norman J. Blears, Sidley Austin LLP, Simona Gurevich Strauss,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Matthew James Dolan, Sidley
Austin LLP.

William Blair & Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Norman J.
Blears, Sidley Austin LLP, Simona Gurevich Strauss, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Matthew James Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP.

Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Norman J.
Blears, Sidley Austin LLP, Simona Gurevich Strauss, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Matthew James Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP.

Leerink Swann LLC, Defendant, represented by Norman J. Blears,
Sidley Austin LLP, Simona Gurevich Strauss, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP & Matthew James Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Tiguan Due to Reduced Fuel Pump Performance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           38101
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014307
TC ID number:             2014307
Manufacturer recall
number:                   24AV/2W

On certain vehicles, deposits may collect on fuel pump connections
and reduce fuel pump performance.  This could cause the engine to
stall, resulting in a loss of motive power and increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will update vehicle software to increase fuel pump
pressure in order to prevent deposits from forming.

Affected products: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 Volkswagen
Tiguan


WINNERS MERCHANTS: Recalls Ecoato Sweet Paprika Powder
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Winners Merchants International LP
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9114

Winners Merchants International LP is recalling Ecoato brand Sweet
Paprika Powder from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella
contamination.  Consumers 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.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

The recall was triggered by a recall in the United States.  The
recall by the US company is published on the website of the United
States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA).  The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (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: 160 g. Ecoato Sweet Paprika Powder


YELP INC: Online Reviewers Want Wages and Expenses Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lily Jeung, Amy Sayers and Darren Walchesky, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Yelp Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-06223-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to Courthouse News Service, reviewers sued Yelp in a
federal class action, claiming the online review service owes them
wages and expenses for doing "the exact same work" that Yelp's
paid employees do.

Lead plaintiff Lily Jeung claims that she and the putative class
"perform the exact same work" posting reviews as many of Yelp's
paid workers perform, but they aren't paid a dime for it.

"This is a lawsuit merely to provide the wages to all writers of
Yelp and not just the ones which Yelp, Inc. chooses to pay in
wages," the complaint states.

This is the second class action complaint against Yelp within the
week in California courts.  On August 6, 2014, shareholders
accused its top three executives of dumping more than $20 million
of their own shares at prices inflated by false and misleading
statements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Alan Bernath, Esq.
          DANIEL A. BERNATH LAW OFFICES
          15532 SW Pacific Highway Space C1B Box 404
          Tigard, OR 97224
          Telephone: (503) 367-4204
          E-mail: ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com


YUM! BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Kentucky Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities
lawsuit pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, according to the company's July 22,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2014.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition.  The four complaints were
subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  On August 5, 2013,
lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the
"Class Period").  The Amended Complaint no longer includes
allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company's
business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during
the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about
the Company's supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices
at which the Company's securities traded.  On October 4, 2013, the
Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete.
The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in the Amended Complaint.  A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.

On January 24, 2013, Bert Bauman, a purported shareholder of the
Company, submitted a letter demanding that the Board of Directors
initiate an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by directors, officers and employees of the Company.  The breaches
of fiduciary duties are alleged to have arisen primarily as a
result of the failure to implement proper controls in connection
with the Company's purchases of poultry from suppliers to the
Company's China operations.  Subsequently, similar demand letters
by other purported shareholders were submitted.  Those letters
were referred to a special committee of the Board of Directors
(the "Special Committee") for consideration.  The Special
Committee, upon conclusion of an independent inquiry of the
matters described in the letters, unanimously determined that it
is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims
described in the letters and, accordingly, rejected each
shareholder's demand.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Dismiss Labor Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss a consolidated
labor suit against it in California, as well as a motion to alter
or amend the second amended complaint, according to Yum! Brands,
Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2014.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the
court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted
certification with respect to the late meal break class. The
parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and
the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were
mailed on January 21, 2014. Per the order of the court, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims.
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco
Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion
to alter or amend the second amended complaint.


YUM! BRANDS: Hearing Set in "Rodriguez" Labor Suit v. Taco Bell
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court in California set a hearing for cross-summary judgment
motions in the suit Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., on
September 10, 2014, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s July 22,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2014.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in
light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied
on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to
address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her meal
break claim before conducting full discovery. On April 23, 2014,
the court approved the stipulation and set a hearing for cross-
summary judgment motions on September 10, 2014.


YUM! BRANDS: Settlement Hearing Set for Bias Suit v. Taco Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is set for September 24, 2014 in the suit
Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
discrimination against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 14, 2014.

In December 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.
In August 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the
class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by
failing to make its restaurants in California accessible to the
class. Plaintiffs contended that queue rails and other
architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants
relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by
persons with mobility-related disabilities did not comply with the
U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons
Act (the "CDPA"). Plaintiffs requested: (a) an injunction ordering
Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations;
(b) that the court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the
Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh
Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, sought the
minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the
Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of
the class. Plaintiffs contended that there may have been more than
100,000 individuals in the class. In February 2004, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class
included claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory
damages.

In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, which sought a judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. In
August 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

In December 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to select one
restaurant to be the subject of a trial. Following the trial, the
court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in October
2011 ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive
relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to
corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined
to order injunctive relief at the time. The court also found that
twelve specific items at the exemplar store were once out of
compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility
standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to decertify
the previously certified state law damages class but denied Taco
Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief class. In
September 2012, the court set a discovery and briefing schedule
concerning the trials of the four individual plaintiffs' state law
damages claims, which the court stated would be tried before
holding further proceedings regarding the possible issuance of an
injunction. The court subsequently issued an order modifying its
October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law deleting the
statement that an injunction was warranted. Plaintiffs appealed
that order, and on June 24, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal. On January 15, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking issuance of a classwide
injunction, and Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss both the
individual and class ADA claims based on a lack of jurisdiction.

On April 24, 2014, the parties agreed to settle this matter. On
June 4, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and set the final approval hearing for September 24,
2014. The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in the
company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and, if the
settlement is approved by the court, the associated cash payments
will not be material.


YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Seeks Summary Judgment in Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut filed a motion for partial summary judgment in a
collective action filed against it by a purported group of
delivery drivers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 14, 2014.

In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza
Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly
reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs,
uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to
represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a
nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery
drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's
pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave
to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint,
which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal
FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws
of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint a second time. In August 2010, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2011, the court
granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law
claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the
court granted plaintiffs' motion in April 2012. The opt-in period
closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in.  On
February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the
collective action, along with a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not
require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery
drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with
Pizza Hut.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Say Reorg Plan Flouts 9th Circ.
---------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reported that insurer
creditors for bankrupt Plant Insulation Co. urged a California
federal judge to reverse a bankruptcy court's approval of Plant's
latest reorganization plan, arguing that the plan flouts a Ninth
Circuit order by forcing Plant's trust to purchase a majority of
Plant's shares at four times their value.

Attorneys for OneBeacon Insurance Co., one of a group of Plant
Insulation's insurers that haven't settled with the bankrupt
insulation company, argued that a proposed aspect of the
reorganization plan -- in which the bankruptcy trust could
purchase a 40 percent stake for $2 million, and another 11 percent
for $1 -- doesn't comply with federal bankruptcy law.

The Ninth Circuit last October sent Plant Insulation's
reorganization plan back to the bankruptcy court after finding it
didn't follow Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, under which a
court-appointed fiduciary stands in for future asbestos claimants.
But the revised plan, approved by California bankruptcy judge
Thomas E. Carlson in February, still fails to pass muster under
524(g) because it forces the trust to gain control by buying
shares of the reorganized debtor for a stated price, OneBeacon
argued in its appeal.

"The question is whether the modified plan meets the
requirements," argued OneBeacon's attorney, Robert Millner of
Dentons US LLP. "The job of the funding requirement was not to put
value in the trust."

But U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg, who is presiding
over the appeal, pointed out that the Ninth Circuit didn't seem to
have any problem with the proposal that the trust could acquire a
40 percent stake for $2 million. "The only fair reading is that
they say that passes muster. Certainly you're not suggesting I
ignore that."

Millner answered: "No, I wouldn't suggest your honor ignore
anything the Ninth Circuit says"

Steven Sacks of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, an attorney
for the committee of unsecured creditors, argued that the Ninth
Circuit remanded the plan on the "fairly narrow" 524(g) issue
while approving many other aspects.

"We did what we thought was a fix to the plan as a result of what
the Ninth Circuit said," Sacks said "We created a warrant that how
as an exercise price that's nominal, and that gets us majority
control." Under questioning from Judge Seeborg, he said the $1 fee
was proposed to signify that assets were changing hands.

Judge Seeborg took the arguments under submission and didn't
indicate how he would rule.

Plant Insulation, which went under in the midst of being inundated
with asbestos-related claims, filed for bankruptcy in May 2009.
After its first reorganization plan was approved in 2012, some of
its insurers appealed the approval to the Ninth Circuit, which
sent it back to the bankruptcy court last October.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plan did not satisfy the
requirement that the trust be entitled to own a majority of the
voting shares of the reorganized debtor, either after confirmation
or at any point where control of the reorganized debtor would
meaningfully benefit the trust.

The panel vacated the order of the bankruptcy court confirming
Plant Insulation's plan of reorganization and remanded to the
district court with instructions that it remand to the bankruptcy
court for proceedings consistent with the panel's opinion.

As part of its reorganization plan, Plant agreed to sell its
various insurance policies to Allianz companies Fireman's Fund
Insurance Co., American Automobile Insurance Co. and National
Surety Corp. in exchange for $69 million. Ace Fire Underwriters
Insurance Co. and OneBeacon appealed the settlement agreement to
Judge Seeborg, who upheld the settlement plan.

OneBeacon is represented by Meeghan L. Buckley, Philip A.
O'Connell Jr., Robert B. Millner and Christopher D. Soper at
Dentons US LLP.

The unsecured creditors committee is represented by Michael H.
Ahrens, Steven B. Sacks and Michael M. Lauter of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, and others.

The case is OneBeacon Insurance Company v. Plant Insulation
Company, case number 3:14-cv-01200, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Inks $800M Ch. 11 Exit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reported that RPM International
Inc. has agreed to pay nearly $800 million into a trust over four
years to handle asbestos-related injury claims against its
Specialty Products Holdings Corp. unit and lift the home-repair
products maker out of bankruptcy in Delaware, the company
announced.

The preliminary deal -- reached with committees representing both
current and potential future asbestos claimants -- is centered on
a plan of reorganization for Specialty Products that still needs
approval from the bankruptcy court, the district court and the
claimants themselves, according to a statement from Ohio-based
RPM.

Besieged by about 15,000 asbestos-related injury claims, Specialty
Products ducked into bankruptcy in May 2010, despite being
operationally profitable. The company's subsidiaries, including
Bondex International Ltd., make adhesives and other chemical-based
home improvement products, some of which have been linked to
mesothelioma and other ailments caused by asbestos exposure,
including a joint compound produced prior to 1977 that has been
linked to mesothelioma and other ailments caused by asbestos
exposure.

"We have been able to reach a settlement on acceptable terms that
will resolve the Bondex-related asbestos liability, while enabling
us to reconsolidate the financial results of [Specialty
Products]'s growing and profitable businesses," RPM Chairman and
CEO Frank Sullivan said in a statement. "Consummation of a plan of
reorganization incorporating these terms will allow RPM to move
forward and put this chapter in our history behind us."

RPM stressed Specialty Products' continuing profitability, noting
that the unit posted $385 million in revenues for the year ending
May 31, as to compared with $300 million for the same period
before it entered bankruptcy in 2010. It added that Specialty
Products' operating results will be reconsolidated with those of
RPM for financial reporting purposes once the bankruptcy plan goes
into effect.

The company expects to navigate what remains of the bankruptcy
process and put the plan into effect by the end of 2015, according
to the statement.

It added that Specialty Products' operating results will be
reconsolidated with those of RPM for financial reporting purposes
once the bankruptcy plan goes into effect.

RPM's proposed contribution to the trust -- $797.5 million --
amounts to around 73 percent of Specialty Products' estimated $1.1
billion of total asbestos liability, the figure a bankruptcy judge
pegged in May 2013 after a protracted court battle in which the
debtor claimed it was on the hook for half that amount or less.

The asbestos claimants gained direct leverage against RPM in
November, winning court permission to sue the parent over pre-
bankruptcy transactions that allegedly transferred 75 percent of
Specialty Products' assets to RPM while leaving liabilities
behind. They claimed that Specialty Products formed RPM in 2002 as
a means of protecting a large block of its assets from the already
mounting number of asbestos-related claims against the company.

Under the deal, RPM will fund the so-called Section 524(g) trust
with $450 million in cash once the plan is consummated. That will
be followed by additional contributions of $102.5 million, $120
million and $125 million in cash, RPM stock or both over the
following three years, according to the statement.

An attorney for the asbestos claimants committee did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

The asbestos claimants committee is represented by Mark B.
Sheppard, Mark A. Fink and Natalie D. Ramsey of Montgomery
McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP and Nathan D. Finch of Motley Rice
LLC. The future claimants representative is represented by James
L. Patton Jr., John T. Dorsey, Edwin J. Harron and Sharon M. Zieg
of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP.

Specialty Products is represented by Gregory M. Gordon and Dan B.
Prieto of Jones Day, and Daniel J. DeFranceschi and Paul N. Heath
of Richards Layton & Finger PA. RPM is represented by Mark F.
Rosenberg of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The case is In re: Specialty Products Holding Corp., case number
1:10-bk-11780, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging asbestos-related personal injury, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with
numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are
similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a
defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it
was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs'
places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts.

"As of March 31, 2014, we are subject to the exposure claims, as
well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of
the lawsuits to which we are a party cannot be determined and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made, we do not believe that the outcomes, either individually
or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
critical equipment for the energy industry which includes the oil
refining, petrochemical, as well as cogeneration, nuclear and
alternative power markets. It design and manufacture custom-
engineered ejectors, pumps, surface condensers and vacuum systems
as well as supplies and components for inside the reactor vessel
and outside the containment vessel of nuclear power facilities.
The Company's equipment is also used in nuclear propulsion power
systems for the defense industry and can be found in other diverse
applications such as metal refining, pulp and paper processing,
water heating, refrigeration, desalination, food processing,
pharmaceutical, heating, ventilating and air conditioning. The
Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries include Graham Vacuum and
Heat transfers Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2014.

The Company is party to litigation in the ordinary course of
business. Such matters are generally subject to uncertainties and
outcomes that are not predictable with assurance and that may not
be known for extended periods of time. Litigation occasionally
involves claims for punitive, as well as compensatory, damages
arising out of the use of the company's products. Although the
company is self-insured to some extent, the company maintains
insurance against certain product liability losses. The Company is
also subject to litigation and administrative and judicial
proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the
discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of
these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury,
remedial investigations or cleanup and other costs and damages.
The company is also typically involved in commercial disputes,
employment disputes, and patent litigation cases in which it is
asserting or defending against patent infringement claims. To
prevent possible infringement of the company's patents by others,
the company periodically reviews competitors' products. To avoid
potential liability with respect to others' patents, the Company
regularly reviews certain patents issued by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office and foreign patent offices. Management
believes these activities help minimize its risk of being a
defendant in patent infringement litigation. The Company records a
liability in its consolidated financial statements for costs
related to claims, including future legal costs, settlements and
judgments, where the company has assessed that a loss is probable
and an amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable
estimate of a probable loss is a range, the company records the
most probable estimate of the loss or the minimum amount when no
amount within the range is a better estimate than any other
amount. The Company discloses a contingent liability even if the
liability is not probable or the amount is not estimable, or both,
if there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have
been incurred. Management believes the amount of liability, if
any, with respect to these matters, individually or in the
aggregate, will not materially affect its consolidated results of
operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The Toro Company (Toro) designs, manufactures, and markets
professional turf maintenance equipment and services, turf
irrigation systems, agricultural micro-irrigation systems,
landscaping equipment and lighting, and residential yard and snow
removal products. The Company operates in three business segments:
Professional, Residential, and Distribution. Its products are
advertised and sold at the retail level under the names of Toro,
Exmark, Irritrol, Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie. In
October 2013, the Company acquired Xiamen Xiangfeng Water Saving
Equipment Co., Ltd. The Company designs professional turf,
landscape, and agricultural products and markets them worldwide
through a network of distributors and dealers, as well as directly
to Government customers, rental companies, and retailers. The
Company market products to landscape contractors under the Toro
and Exmark brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against 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 April 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages
paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is
possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, IC Bus (IC) brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
Workhorse Custom Chassis (WCC) brand chassis for motor homes and
step vans, and Monaco RV (Monaco) recreational vehicles (RV), as
well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and
trailers. In addition, it is a private-label designer and
manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck, van and sport
utility vehicle (SUV) markets. It also provides retail, wholesale,
and lease financing of trucks and parts. NIC operates in four
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts and Financial Services. In February
2013, Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd purchased the Navistar Group's
stake in Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd (MNAL) and Mahindra
Navistar Engines Pvt Ltd (MNEPL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related product liability cases, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2014.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 2,960 asbestos and silica-
related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our
subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings
relating to environmental matters. In addition, as a normal part
of operations, our subsidiaries undertake contractual obligations,
warranties and guarantees in connection with the sale of products
or services. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty and favorable or unfavorable resolutions
may affect our results of operations on a quarter-to-quarter
basis, we believe that the outcome of such legal and other matters
will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity."

Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company's equipment is used in mining
regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil
sands, and other minerals. The Company's underground mining
machinery segment (Joy Mining Machinery) is a manufacturer of
underground mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
bedded minerals and offers service locations near mining regions
worldwide. The Company's surface mining equipment segment (P&H
Mining Equipment) is a producer of surface mining equipment for
the extraction of ores and minerals and provides operational
support for many types of equipment used in surface mining. In
June 2014, the Company purchased certain assets of Mining
Technologies International Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NGA Holdco Hotel Rooms' Ceilings Contain Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
NGA Holdco, LLC, says asbestos has been determined to be present
in the acoustic ceilings of approximately 216 of the Eldorado-
Reno's older hotel rooms, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2014.

Removal of the asbestos will be required only in the event of the
demolition of the affected rooms or if the asbestos is otherwise
disturbed. The Company said Eldorado's management currently has no
plans to renovate or demolish the affected rooms in a manner that
would require removal of the asbestos.

NGA Holdco, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("NGA"), was
formed on January 8, 2007 at the direction of Newport Global
Opportunities Fund LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("NGOF") and
an affiliate of Newport Global Advisors LP, a Delaware limited
partnership ("Newport"). NGA was formed for the primary purpose of
holding equity, directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries,
in one or more entities related to the gaming industry. NGA has
two wholly-owned subsidiaries, NGA Blocker, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company ("Blocker"), and AcquisitionCo, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company ("AcquisitionCo"), each of which was
formed on January 8, 2007. References to the "Company" are to NGA
and, unless the context otherwise requires, its subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Enters Into WRG Share Repurchase Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation entered into a Stock Repurchase Agreement
with the WRG Asbestos PI Trust on June 6, 2014, in which the
Company agreed to purchase $130 million of its common stock
beneficially owned by the Trust, according to the Company's
Form 8-K dated June 6, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 12, 2014.

The Stock Repurchase Agreement provides the terms under which the
Company agreed to purchase $130 million of its common stock
beneficially owned by the Trust at the price per share paid by
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (the "Underwriter") to the
Trust in a registered, secondary common stock offering (the
"Secondary Offering"). The Company is facilitating the Secondary
Offering in connection with the registration rights agreement
entered into by the Company and the Trust as part of the
settlement agreement between the Company and committees appointed
to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case of W.R.
Grace & Co., pursuant to which settlement agreement the Trust
received (among other assets) 18,000,000 shares of the Company's
common stock. The Company's obligation to consummate the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Repurchase Agreement is
conditioned upon the completion of the Secondary Offering.

On June 13, 2014, Sealed Air closed its previously announced
underwritten offering of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock by
WRG Asbestos PI Trust.  The selling stockholder received all of
the proceeds from this offering. No shares of common stock were
sold by Sealed Air. Sealed Air also completed its previously
announced repurchase of 3,932,244 shares of common stock from the
selling stockholder, which was conditioned on the completion of
the offering.

A copy of the Company's Underwriting Agreement is available
at http://is.gd/o54jt6

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection business. The Company
serves a range of end markets, including food and beverage
processing, food service, retail, health care and industrial,
commercial and consumer applications. The Company's brands include
bubbles Wrap brand cushioning, Cryovac brand food packaging
solutions and Diversey brand cleaning and hygiene solutions. The
Company operates in four segments: food care, diversey care,
product care and other category, which includes its medical
applications and new venture businesses. During the year ended
December 31, 2013, the Company's operations generated
approximately 65% of its revenue from outside the United States,
including approximately 26% of its revenue from developing
regions. These developing regions are Africa, Asia (excluding
Japan and South Korea), Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EEI Continues to Defend Admin. Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------
Ecology And Environment, Inc., continues to defend itself against
an administrative proceeding relating to asbestos remediation in
one of its properties, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2014.

On September 21, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (the "Department") issued a proposed Compliance
Order on Consent (the " Proposed Consent Order") to the City and
County of Denver ("Denver") and to Walsh Environmental Scientists
and Engineers, LLC ("Walsh"). On the date that the Proposed
Consent Order was issued, Walsh was a majority-owned subsidiary of
Ecology and Environment, Inc. The Proposed Consent Order concerns
construction improvement activities of certain property owned by
Denver which was the subject of asbestos remediation. Denver had
entered into a contract with Walsh for Walsh to provide certain
environmental consulting services (asbestos monitoring services)
in connection with the asbestos containment and/or removal
performed by other contractors at Denver's real property. Without
admitting liability or the Department's version of the underlying
facts, Walsh on February 13, 2013, entered into a Compliance Order
on Consent with the Department and paid a penalty of less than
$0.1 million and paid for a Supplemental Environmental Project to
benefit the public at large in an amount less than $0.1 million.
Denver was served with a final Compliance Order and Assessment of
Administrative Penalty against Denver alone for approximately $0.2
million. Under Walsh's environmental consulting contract with
Denver, Walsh has agreed to indemnify Denver for certain
liabilities where Walsh could potentially be held responsible for
a portion of the penalty imposed upon Denver. Walsh has put its
professional liability and general liability carriers on notice of
this indemnification claim by Denver. The Company believes that
this administrative proceeding involving Walsh will not have an
adverse material effect on the operations of the Company.

Ecology And Environment, Inc., provides solutions to a full range
of environmental problems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
VWR Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products
containing asbestos by certain of its predecessors or acquired
companies, according to the Company's Form S-1 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2014.

The Company states: "Our business involves risk of product
liability, patent infringement and other claims in the ordinary
course of business arising from the products that we source from
various manufacturers or produce ourselves, as well as from the
services we provide. Our exposure to such claims may increase as
we seek to increase the geographic scope of our sourcing
activities and sales of private label products and to the extent
that we consummate additional acquisitions that vertically
integrate portions of our business. We maintain insurance
policies, including product liability insurance, and in many cases
the manufacturers of the products we distribute have indemnified
us against such claims. We cannot assure you that our insurance
coverage or indemnification agreements with manufacturers will be
available in all pending or any future cases brought against us.
Furthermore, our ability to recover under any insurance or
indemnification arrangements is subject to the financial viability
of our insurers, our manufacturers and our manufacturers'
insurers, as well as legal enforcement under the local laws
governing the arrangements. In particular, as we seek to expand
our sourcing from manufacturers in Asia-Pacific and other
developing locations, we expect that we will increase our exposure
to potential defaults under the related indemnification
arrangements. Insurance coverage in general or coverage for
certain types of liabilities, such as product liability or patent
infringement in these developing markets, may not be readily
available for purchase or cost-effective for us to purchase.
Furthermore, insurance for liability relating to asbestos, lead
and silica exposure is not available, and we do not maintain
insurance for product recalls. Accordingly, we could be subject to
uninsured and unindemnified future liabilities, and an unfavorable
result in a case for which adequate insurance or indemnification
is not available could result in a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.

"We are also involved in various legal and regulatory cases,
claims, assessments and inquiries, which are considered routine to
our business and which include being named from time to time as a
defendant in cases as a result of our distribution of laboratory
supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior
distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of our
predecessors or acquired companies. While the impact of this
litigation has historically been immaterial and we believe the
range of reasonably possible loss from current matters continues
to be immaterial, there can be no assurance that the impact of the
pending and any future claims will not be material to our
business, financial condition or results of operations in the
future."

VWR Corporation is an independent provider of laboratory products,
services and solutions to the global life science, general
research and applied markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form S-1 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014.

The Company states: "In its 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical
Company from McKesson Corporation, or McKesson, our wholly owned
subsidiary, Univar USA Inc., entered into an indemnification
agreement with McKesson, or the McKesson Purchase Agreement.
Univar USA has an obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson for
claims alleging injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products sold by McKesson Chemical Company, or the asbestos
claims. Univar USA's obligation to indemnify McKesson for
settlements and judgments arising from asbestos claims is the
amount which is in excess of applicable insurance coverage, if
any, which may be available under McKesson's historical insurance
coverage. In addition, we are currently defending a small number
of claims which name Univar USA as a defendant.

"As of March 31, 2014, Univar USA has accepted the tender of, and
is defending McKesson in, 11 pending separate-plaintiff claims in
multi-plaintiff lawsuits filed in the State of Mississippi. These
lawsuits have multiple plaintiffs, include a large number of
defendants, and provide no specific information on the plaintiffs'
injuries and do not connect the plaintiffs' injuries to any
specific sources of asbestos. Additionally, the majority of the
plaintiffs in these lawsuits have not put forth evidence that they
have been seriously injured from exposure to asbestos. No new
claims in Mississippi have been received since 2010. At the peak
there were approximately 16,000 such claims pending against
McKesson. To date, the costs for defending these cases have not
been material, and the cases that have been finalized have either
been dismissed or resolved with either minimal or no payments.
Although we cannot predict the outcome of pending or future claims
or lawsuits with certainty, we believe the future defense and
liability costs for the Mississippi cases will not be material.
Univar USA has not recorded a reserve related to these lawsuits,
as it has determined that losses are neither probable nor
estimable.

"As of March 31, 2014, Univar USA was defending fewer than 135
single-plaintiff asbestos claims against McKesson (or Univar USA
as a successor in interest to McKesson Chemical Company) pending
in the states of Alabama, California, Illinois, Missouri, Rhode
Island, South Carolina and Texas. These cases differ from the
Mississippi multi-plaintiff cases in that they are single-
plaintiff cases with the plaintiff alleging substantial specific
injuries from exposure to asbestos-containing products. These
cases are similar to the Mississippi cases in that numerous
defendants are named and that they provide little specific
information connecting the plaintiffs' injuries to any specific
source of asbestos. Although we cannot predict the outcome of
pending or future claims or lawsuits with certainty, we believe
the liabilities for these cases will not be material. In the first
quarter of 2014, there were 10 single-plaintiff lawsuits filed
against McKesson and 11 cases against McKesson which were
resolved. As of March 31, 2014, Univar USA has not recorded a
liability related to the pending litigation as any potential loss
is neither probable nor estimable."

Univar Inc., with nearly universal coverage, Univar distributes a
broad range of chemicals. The company is a leading global
distributor of specialty chemicals, ranking #1 in the US and
Canada and #2 in Europe. It operates more than 260 distribution
facilities worldwide. Subsidiaries Univar Europe, Univar USA, and
Univar Canada handle sales, marketing, and logistics in those key
markets. Univar's portfolio includes more than 4,500 products, and
its storage and transportation capabilities further serve
customers' chemical needs. Markets include paints and coatings,
energy, food, and household and industrial cleaning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 4 Fibro-related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has settled four asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness
of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and under certain circumstances,
settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under
these agreements, we are required under certain circumstances to
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to
delineate our rights under certain insurance policies, in October
2009, we commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of
our insurers in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota. Additional insurers have been brought into the
action to address issues related to the scope of their coverage.
"We recently entered into a settlement agreement with the
defendant insurers in this case that provided for the allocation
of defense costs and settlements in the future. The allocation
under the settlement agreement depends on the outcome of an appeal
of two issues to the United States Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"For the 26-Weeks Ended May 31, 2014, the Company has settled 4
lawsuits and claims for $0.2 million and expected to receive $0.2
million from insurance payments.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow. However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company operates in five segments: North America Adhesives,
Construction Products, Europe, India, Middle East and Africa
(EIMEA), Latin America Adhesives and Asia Pacific. Sales
operations span 40 countries in North America, Europe, Latin
America, the Asia Pacific region, India, the Middle East and
Africa. Industrial adhesives represent the Company's core product
offering. The Company also provides its customers with technical
support and solutions designed to address their specific needs.
The Company has a variety of product offerings for residential
construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives, grouts,
sealants and related products. These products are sold primarily
in the Company's Construction Products operating segment. In June
2013, HB Fuller Co announced that it has finalized the purchase of
Plexbond Quimica S/A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Has 128 Pending Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
There were 128 asbestos-related cases pending against GenCorp
Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2014.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 128 asbestos cases pending as of May 31,
2014.  Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims
(i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant
assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims
or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability
has been accrued.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: May 2015 Trial Set for AMEC Reimbursement Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 2015 trial is scheduled in the lawsuit filed by a subsidiary
of GenCorp Inc. seeking reimbursement for costs incurred in
defending asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2014.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business
assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne
subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the defense of
sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in
Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal
fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet Rocketdyne
retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets
and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant
purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified
liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the
sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing
liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the
purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against
it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet Rocketdyne declined
to accept the liability and requested additional information from
AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC
filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet
Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction
Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No.
342013001424718. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed its answer to the
complaint denying AMEC's allegations and discovery is ongoing. The
court has scheduled a trial date for May 18, 2015. No estimate of
liability has been accrued for this matter as of May 31, 2014.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Wants Swift Trial in Garlock's Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a bankruptcy judge, recently reversed on closing to
the public a trial on a gasketmaker's liability to asbestos
plaintiffs, said he has gotten the message that public access
should be provided quickly.

The closed trial was held last year to estimate the liability of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, which is undergoing in
bankruptcy.  The company, facing asbestos claims, is restructuring
and discharging liability by setting up a trust for claimants, as
provided for under federal bankruptcy law.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
Carolina closed the trial and sealed evidence upon which he made
his decision regarding how to measure Garlock's liability to
asbestos plaintiffs.  In that decision, Judge Hodges concluded
that past settlements Garlock had entered into were not a reliable
way to estimate the company's liability because of alleged
misrepresentations by plaintiffs' lawyers.

On July 31, Judge Hodges said the U.S. District Court's quick
decision regarding the appeal to closing the trial and sealing
evidence was "some message on their part that we should get on
with it."

He set a 30-day deadline for any objectors to state why they think
an evidentiary seal is still warranted.  He set replies to the
objector's arguments at 21 days.

The sealed evidence revolves around evidence that led Judge Hodges
to conclude there was a pattern of misrepresentation by
plaintiff's lawyers in cases in which Garlock was a defendant.
The judge found that the plaintiffs' counsel allegedly indicated
their clients were exposed to certain sources of asbestos at issue
in tort cases.

Then, according to Hodges, the plaintiffs counsel indicated their
clients were exposed to other sources of asbestos when seeking
compensation from the trusts formed out of the bankruptcy of
companies that made products containing asbestos.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western
District of North Carolina remanded the case back to Judge Hodges'
courtroom in order for the lower court to conduct fact-finding
about the public's right of access because of the common law or
because of the First Amendment.  Other asbestos defendants,
insurance companies or media outlets have been seeking access to
the Garlock evidence.

Judge Hodges said it was clear from Judge Cogburn's ruling that he
needs to determine on a document-by-document basis whether any
should be sealed and kept out of the public eye.  He said the
proposed order should require that parties state their basis for
making their claims of access.

"My general feeling is we should move on this quickly as we
could," Judge Hodges said.

K. Elizabeth Sieg -- bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods
LLP in Richmond, Va., said that non-parties like her client Ford
Motor Company want to reserve the right to object to sealing
orders.  Ford and the other non-parties want to be able to have
their attorneys review the materials or conduct discovery to get
more specificity on what is being sealed.

"We're the only ones who can't see any of this stuff," Ms. Sieg
said.  "We're litigating with our hands tied behind our backs in
some respect."

While Judge Hodges's order does reserve right for anyone to
challenge sealing orders, he said during the hearing he hopes "we
don't end up with satellite litigation to the satellite
litigation."  He was apparently referencing that the fight over
the access to the alleged evidence that was misrepresented by
plaintiffs is ancillary to Garlock's restructuring through
bankruptcy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded to Cleaver-Brooks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma issued an order dated Aug. 1,
2014, granting defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled
NORMA BOOTENHOFF and EUGENE BOOTENHOFF, Plaintiffs, v. HORMEL
FOODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-11-1368-D
(W.D. Okla.).  In granting summary judgment, Judge DeGiusti said
that lack of foreseeability and additional policy considerations
dictate that Cleaver-Brooks did not owe a duty to warn or a duty
of care to Norma Bootenhoff.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs'
products liability and negligence claims fail as a matter of law.

Norma Bootenhoff and Eugene Bootenhoff, Plaintiff, represented by
Alex Barlow, Esq., and John B Black, Esq., at Heard Robins Cloud &
Black LLP; R Lyle Clemens, Esq., at Clemens Pate Leebron & Wolfe.

International Paper Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Brita H
Cantrell, Esq., Thomas E Steichen, Esq., and Brita H Cantrell,
Esq., at McAfee & Taft; and Casey L Butts, Esq., Thomas P Smith,
Esq., and Kyle Christopher Steele, Esq., at Forman Perry Watkins
Krutz Tardy LLP.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by John D Cowan,
Esq., Murray E Abowitz, Esq., and John D Cowan, Esq., at Abowitz
Timberlake & Dahnke PC.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, Pro Se.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Clay White, Esq., at
White Shaver; and James B Buxton, II, Esq., at Buxton Carson PLLC.

MW Custom Papers LLC, Defendant, represented by John D Cowan,
Esq., and Murray E Abowitz, Esq., at Abowitz Timberlake Dahnke and
Gisinger PC; and Kayce L Gisinger, Esq., at Goolsby Proctor
Heefner & Gibbs PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. High Court Upholds Abatement Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
C & H Electric, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court
in part for the defendant, the town of Bethel, on the plaintiff's
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from
the plaintiff's role in the town's renovation of its high school.
The trial court rejected the the Plaintiff's claim that the town
must reimburse it for additional costs incurred during its
electrical work due to interference from the town's ongoing
asbestos abatement work at the school.

On appeal, the Plaintiff insists that the trial court: (1) applied
an improper standard for determining "active interference,"
arguing that it needed to show only an affirmative, wilful act by
the town that unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work,
rather than bad faith or gross negligence as the trial court
required; and (2) incorrectly concluded that the town's conduct
did not fall within either of two judicially created exceptions to
the enforcement of "no damages for delay" clauses adopted by this
court in White Oak Corp. v. Dept. of Transportation, 217 Conn.
281, 289, 585 A.2d 1199 (1991) (White Oak).

The Supreme Court of Connecticut, in an opinion dated Aug. 5,
2014, agreed with the Plaintiff that it need not show bad faith or
gross negligence to establish active interference, but concluded
that the town's conduct in this case did not rise to the level of
active interference or fall within either of the claimed White Oak
exceptions.  The Supreme Court therefore agreed with the trial
court's decision that the Plaintiff is not entitled to
compensation under any of the "no damages for delay" exceptions at
issue here.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's judgment.

The case is C AND H ELECTRIC, INC. v. TOWN OF BETHEL, (SC
19162)(Conn.).  A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/of2cycfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey J. White, with whom, on the brief, were Gregory R.
Faulkner and Elizabeth K. Wright, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Benjamin B. Manchak, with whom were Joshua A. Hawks-Ladds and, on
the brief, Richard C. Robinson, for the appellee (defendant).
Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Logan" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Logan worked at a Getty oil refinery in Delaware for 30
years where he was exposed to asbestos on a regular basis.
Defendants Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Crane Company, and
Ingersoll-Rand Company have filed motions for summary judgment.
The moving defendants either sold asbestos-containing products
used at the refinery or provided workers who undertook tasks that
resulted in asbestos exposure to those working nearby.  Mr. Logan
later developed mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos
exposure, and passed away.

Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for
the Middle District North Carolina, in a memorandum opinion and
order, denied the motions for summary judgment in large part
holding that with one exception, the evidence gives rise to
disputed questions of fact about liability of the moving
defendants under the "frequency, regularity, and exposure" test.

The case JOSEPH LOGAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Ralph Logan, Deceased, and LOIS LOGAN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR PRODUCTS
AND CHEMICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:12-CV-1353
(M.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Eagles' Decision is
available at http://is.gd/p0j4Hmfrom Leagle.com.

JOSEPH LOGAN and LOIS LOGAN, Plaintiffs, represented by JANET WARD
BLACK, Esq., WARD BLACK LAW; and KEVIN W. PAUL, Esq., and TIFFANY
N. DICKENSON, Esq., at SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC.

AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARK
S. THOMAS, Esq., at WILLIAMS MULLEN.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M. TECHMAN,
Esq. -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- at EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF.

CRANE COMPANY (THE), Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP & TRAVIS ANDREW
BUSTAMANTE, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
JENNIFER M. TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF.

GARDNER DENVER, INC., Defendant, represented by AMY C. DRAYTON,
Esq. -- adrayton@deanandgibson.com -- at DEAN GIBSON HOFER &
NANCE, PLLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M.
TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN B. WILLIAMSON,
Esq. -- swilliamson@vwlawfirm.com -- at Van Winkle, Buck, Wall,
Starnes & Davis, P.A..

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by KEITH
E. COLTRAIN, Esq., at WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A..

PFIZER, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP.

THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DAVID B.
OAKLEY, Esq., and TARA L. CHADBOURN, Esq., at POOLE MAHONEY PC.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY PECK,
Esq., at SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Dismissal of Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Rothchild alleges that he contracted mesothelioma as a
result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied and/or distributed by numerous
companies named as defendants in his lawsuit.

Union Carbide, one of the defendants, filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that the Amended Complaint is fatally vague as to itself
noting that the Amended Complaint "never asserts what product
Union Carbide manufactured or distributed, what conduct forms the
basis of Union Carbide's asserted liability, what products
allegedly caused the asserted injuries, or when, how, or where any
such products allegedly did so."

Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, in opinion and order dated Aug. 1,
2014, granted Union Carbide's motion to dismiss.  A full-text copy
of Judge Marra's Decision with respect to Union Carbide's Motion
to Dismiss is available at http://is.gd/RkDcv9from Leagle.com.

The case  is HERBERT ROTHCHILD and AUDREY ROTHCHILD, his wife,
Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION;
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., f/k/a OWENS
BOTTLE MACHINE CORP., f/k/a OWENS BOTTLE CO., f/k/a OWENS-ILLINOIS
GLASS CO.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants, CASE NO. 14-
80271-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.).

Herbert Rothchild and Audrey Rothchild, his wife, Plaintiff,
represented by James L. Ferraro, Esq., Marc Phillip Kunen, Esq.,
and James Louis Ferraro, Jr., Esq., at The Ferraro Law Firm.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Rebecca Carrie Kibbe, Esq.,
and Kaylin S Grey, Esq., at K and L Gates.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tanya
Michelle Lawson, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew John
Conigliaro, Esq., Stephen J. Krigbaum, Esq., and Ryan Stephen
Cobbs, Esq., at Carlton Fields PA.

Lorillard Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Sabrina R.
Ferris, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Tanfield" FELA Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Tanfield, administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of
Harold Tanfield, filed a case under the Federal Employers'
Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. Sections 51 to 60, based upon a claim
of occupational exposure.  The Plaintiff's theory of the case is
that her late husband's former employer allowed him to be
continually exposed to diesel fumes and other toxic substances,
including asbestos, without providing him with masks or other
adequate protective equipment.  She further alleges that the
occupational exposure was a causal factor in her husband
contracting lung cancer, leading to his death.

The trial court granted the summary judgment raised by
Consolidated Rail Corporation, the defendant employer.  The trial
court concluded that the Plaintiff had not presented sufficient
proof of the Defendant's duty of care to the decedent as its
employee, or that it breached that duty.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in a
decision dated Aug. 11, 2014, reversed the trial court's
determination.  The Superior Court ruled that viewing the lay and
expert proof in the record in a light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, there are sufficient genuine disputed issues of duty
and breach raised in this distinctive context of a FELA
occupational exposure case.  Accordingly, the Superior Court
remanded the matter for a trial.

The case is MARY TANFIELD, Administratrix ad Prosequendum of the
Estate of HAROLD TANFIELD, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEIGH
RAILROAD, CONSOLIDATED RAIL SHARED ASSETS, CSX TRANSPORTATION AND
SYSTEMS, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants, and
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION (a Pennsylvania Corporation licensed
to do business in the State of New Jersey), Defendant-Respondent,
NO. A-4170-12T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Superior Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/uRRrr5from
Leagle.com.

Richard S. Mazawey, Esq., attorney for appellant.  Ruprecht Hart
Weeks and Ricciardulli, LLP, and Patrick M. Horvat (Burns White
LLC) of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Ira L.
Podheiser (Burns White LLC) of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro
hac vice, attorneys for respondent (Francis D. Engracia, Louis A.
Ruprecht, Mr. Horvat, and Mr. Podheiser, on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Willis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Willis was allegedly exposed to asbestos while serving in
the United States Navy between 1959 and 1980 as a result of his
work with asbestos-containing products.  John Crane Inc.
purportedly manufactured and supplied asbestos-containing gasket
material sheets and packing material to the United States Navy.

In 2012, Donald Willis was diagnosed with Malignant Mesothelioma.
Donald Willis and his wife, Viola Willis, brought suit advancing a
number of claims including negligence, strict liability, false
representation, intentional failure to warn, premises
owner/contractor liability, and loss of consortium.  Donald Willis
died from Malignant Mesothelioma on May 5, 2013.  Viola Willis
subsequently amended the complaint to include a cause of action
for wrongful death and was substituted in her deceased husband's
place so that she could assert his original claims.

John Crane filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied
by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California in an order dated Aug. 1,
2014.  The Court concluded that the Defendant has not carried its
burden of showing that the Plaintiff "does not have enough
evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of
persuasion at trial."  Based on the Plaintiff's evidence, a
reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendant's managing
agents had actual knowledge that their asbestos-containing gaskets
were dangerous and would substantially increase the risk of
asbestos-related illness for those working with them, and further
that the Defendant consciously disregarded these risks during the
time of the Plaintiff's exposure by continuing to manufacture and
sell asbestos-containing gaskets without providing any warning to
end-users.  Accordingly, Judge Moskowitz denied the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment on this basis.

The case is DONALD WILLIS AND VIOLA WILLIS, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO
PUMPS INC., et al. Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV744 BTM (DHB)(S.D.
Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/8jTmElfrom Leagle.com.

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

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

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

John Crane, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Russell, Esq., Julia A. Gowin, Esq., and Michael B.
Giaquinto, Esq., at Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP.

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

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

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Meghan Phillips,
Esq., at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Crane, Co., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Stephen
P. Farkas, Esq., and Bradley William Gunning, Esq., at K&L Gates
LLP; and Kathleen L. Beiermeister, Esq., at Meagher and Geer PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Brigantino" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled THOMAS BRIGANTINO,
Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants,
DOCKET NO. 190390/12, MOTION SEQ. 011 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant
Westchester Square Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., moves for an order
awarding it conditional summary judgment on its cross-claim for
common law indemnification against co-defendant Weil-McLain.  In
response Weil-McLain asserts that Westchester Supply had an
independent duty to warn the plaintiff of the hazards associated
with asbestos and that whether or not Westchester Supply satisfied
its burden is a triable question of fact.  Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and
order dated July 29, 2014, denied Westchester Square Plumbing
Supply Co., Inc.'s motion for a conditional order of summary
judgment on its cross-claim for common law indemnification against
defendant Weil-McLain.  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/6TrYwHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Awarded Summary Judgment in "Haas" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Susan Haas, individually and as executrix of Carl
Brasmer, and individual heirs of the estate of Carl Brasmer
initiated a products liability and wrongful death action against,
inter alia, Defendants Boeing Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, and General Electric Company.  The claims in the
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint arise out of the alleged
injuries, and ensuing death, suffered by Decedent Carl Brasmer,
which the Plaintiffs contend resulted from Brasmer's exposure to
the Defendants' asbestos-containing products.

The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which Judge
Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted.  Judge Wolfson awarded Goodyear
summary judgment after determining that Goodyear has established a
lack of record evidence supporting the Plaintiffs' claim that the
Decedent ever came into contact with any asbestos-containing
Goodyear product, or that the Decedent had regular, frequent, and
proximate exposure to asbestos from a Goodyear product.  Judge
Wolfson also concluded that Boeing has shown its entitlement to
the government contractor defense, and the Plaintiffs have failed
to identify any material facts precluding summary judgment on
their claims against GE and Goodyear.

The case is SUSAN HAAS, Individually and as Executrix of Carl
Brasmer, and Individual Heirs of the Estate of CARL BRASMER,
Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-2944 (FLW)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's
Decision dated July 24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Gr6hHo
from Leagle.com.

CARL BRASMER, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL EMMETT MCMAHON,
Esq., at COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC.

3M COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant and Counter
Defendant, represented by CAROLYN LEE MCCORMACK, Esq., at LAVIN
O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Claimant and
Counter Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT GAFFREY, Esq., at
HOAGLAND, LONGO, OROPOLLO & MORAN, ESQS..

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, Esq., and DAVID SCHUYLER
BLOW, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Counter Defendant, represented by DAVID J. NOVACK, Esq., and
TERENCE W. CAMP, Esq., at BUDD, LARNER, P.C..

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by DAWN DEZII, Esq., at
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant and Counter
Defendant, represented by ETHAN D. STEIN, Esq., at GIBBONS, PC.

NORTHROP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant and Counter
Defendant, represented by KEVIN W. RETHORE, Esq., at DLA PIPER
LLP.

CBS CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Allowed to Proceed Against Mario & DiBono
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled ROLF T. HAMMER,
deceased, Plaintiffs, v. ALGOMA HARDWOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendant(s), DOCKET NO. 190363/12, MOTION SEQ. 007 (N.Y. Sup.),
defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co. moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it on the
ground that there is no evidence to show that it contributed to
the plaintiffs' decedent Rolf Hammer's alleged asbestos exposure.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Mario & DiBono's motion, holding that although Mario &
DiBono does not expressly raise a causation argument, it
insinuates that Mr. Hammer's four-hour exposure period is too de
minimis to be deemed a substantial contributing cause of his
injuries.  Judge Heitler, however, pointed out that Mario & DiBono
has not submitted any medical evidence, expert testimony, or
relevant caselaw to support its position, and as such has not met
its prima facie burden in this regard.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's decision and order dated
July 28, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/7dtthgfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order of Service Issued in Inmate's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Norman Walter Hirscher, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison,
filed a pro se civil rights action alleging, among other things,
that he was in a work unit that was required to clean an area
containing asbestos and that he has several health problems
resulting from his exposure to asbestos.  Judge Edward M. Chen of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an order of service dated July 31, 2014, holding that the
complaint states a cognizable claim against certain defendants for
violation of the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights and directed
the Clerk of Court to issue a summons to the individual
defendants.

The case is NORMAN WALTER HIRSCHER, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH; et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. C-14-0340 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Chen's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/FW1WkXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Baxley" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Ann Baxley, who appears both individually and as the
personal representative of the estate of Jimmie Williams, appeals
the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Appellee
Georgia-Pacific LLC.  In August 2008, decedent Jimmie Williams was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, and passed away from the disease the
next month.  Baxley claims that Williams's illness was caused by a
Georgia-Pacific product containing asbestos that he was exposed to
in the course of performing substantial home remodeling in the
1970s.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed after agreeing with the District Court that Baxley has
failed to produce sufficient evidence to raise a genuine factual
dispute for trial.

The appellate case is In re: Asbestos Products Liability
Litigation (No. VI) relating to CATHY BAXLEY, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Jimmie Williams,
Appellant, NO. 13-4115 (3d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Third
Circuit's Decision dated July 31, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/sFwaJafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Affirms Flintkote Confirmation Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware affirmed a bankruptcy court's order
confirming the plan of reorganization for The Flintkote Company
and disallowing Genstar Corporation's proof of claim for expenses
incurred in investigating the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Judge Stark agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that exposed-but-
asymptomatic individuals have potential "future demands" and
Congress did not make the terms "claim" and "demand" mutually
exclusive, as Genstar suggests.  Furthermore, Judge Stark ruled
that Genstar's interpretation "does not provide protection for
those people who are exposed [to asbestos] but asymptomatic."

The case is IN RE: THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, et al., relating to
IMPERIAL TOBACCO CANADA LIMITED, and CERTAIN WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARIES, INCLUDING GENSTAR CORPORATION, Appellants, v. THE
FLINTKOTE COMPANY, FLINTKOTE MINES LIMITED, THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE
OF ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANTS, and JAMES J. McMONAGLE, in
his capacity as FUTURE CLAIMANTS REPRESENTATIVE, Appellees, CASE
NO. 04-11300-JKF, CIV. NO. 13-227-LPS (D. Del.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Stark's Decision dated July 10, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/ckJ4Hpfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 NY PI Suits Consolidated for Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, issued
a decision and order dated July 22, 2014, granting a motion to
consolidate for joint trial the cases filed by Anthony Bova, Index
No. 102148/03, James Futia, Index No. 100919/08, William Gay,
Index No. 127678/02, and James McGinnity, Index No. 104643/07.
The Denise Obremski action, Index No. 108412/07, and the Frederick
Abrams action, Index No. 108667/07, will be tried separately.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
CAROLYN ABRAMS, Individually and as Administratix, for the Estate
of Frederick J. Abrams, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER
LTD., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 108667/07, MOTION SEQ. NO. 01
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/x1hydSfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Daniel Homer, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
         700 Broadway
         New York, NY 10003
         Tel: 212-558-5500

Goodyear is represented by:

         Jennifer T. Childs, Esq.
         LYNCH DASK AL EMERY LLP
         264 W. 40th St.
         New York, NY 10018

Joint defendants are represented by:

         Stephen Novakidis, Esq.
         SEDGWICK, LLP
         Three Gateway Ctr., 12th Fl.
         Newark , NJ 07102
         Tel: 973-242-0002

Cleaver Brooks is represented by:

         Michael S. Cromer, Esq.
         BARRY, MCTIERNAN & MOORE
         2 Rector St., 14th fl.
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: 212-313-3600
         Email: mcromer@bmmfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Kennedy" Suit Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Kennedy appeals a trial court's grant of summary judgment for
Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., and its denial of his Civil Rule
60(b)(3) motion.  The trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of Saberhagen because it concluded Kennedy failed to present
sufficient evidence to create a reasonable inference that he was
exposed to asbestos supplied by Tacoma Asbestos, Saberhagen's
predecessor.  Kennedy argues that there is sufficient evidence to
create a genuine issue of material fact regarding his exposure to
Saberhagen's products.  The Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division Two, in a decision dated July 22, 2014, agreed with the
trial court and, accordingly, reversed and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The case is JACK DON KENNEDY and SANDRA KENNEDY, husband and wife,
Appellants, v. SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC, Respondent, NO. 43941-7-
II, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 45381-9-II (Wash. App.).  A full-text
copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/g3p3A5from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

         Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq.
         Vanessa Jane Firnhab Oslund, Esq.
         Glenn S. Draper, Esq.
         Chandler H. Udo, Esq.
         BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG, PLLC
         614 1st Ave Fl 4
         Seattle, WA, 98104-2233
         Email: matt@bergmanlegal.com
                vanessa@bergmanlegal.com
                glenn@bergmanlegal.com
                chandler@bergmanlegal.com

            -- and --

         John Wentworth Phillips, Esq.
         PHILLIPS LAW GROUP PLLC
         315 5th Ave S. Ste 1000
         Seattle, WA, 98104-2682
         Email: jphillips@jphillipslaw.com

Counsel for Respondents:

         Timothy Kost Thorson, Esq.
         Christine D. Sanders, Esq.
         CARNEY BADLEY & SPELLMAN
         701 5th Ave Ste 3600
         Seattle, WA, 98104-7010
         Email: thorson@carneylaw.com
                sanders@carneylaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Indemnification Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware issued a memorandum dated July 28, 2014, granting
defendants Old Magic Corporation and Acme Patent Corp.'s motions
to dismiss a contractual indemnification lawsuit filed by Homax
Products, Inc., seeking judgment declaring that the defendants are
obligated to indemnify Homax for its attorneys' fees and costs
arising from an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed in
a state court.

In granting the motions to dismiss, Judge Robinson ruled that the
plain language of the asset purchase agreement entered into
between Magic American Products, Inc., with Magic American
Corporation, demonstrates that the claims asserted against MACC in
the state court action were not claims to which the
indemnification provisions of the APA applied.  Homax, which is
successor by merger to MAP, therefore, lacks standing to pursue
its various claims under the APA, seeking reimbursement for
attorney fees and costs that were voluntarily incurred by Homax
without any legal basis.

The case is HOMAX PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. OLD MAGIC
CORPORATION f/k/a Magic American Corporation f/k/a Magic American
Chemical Corporation, and ALSCOTT, LLC f/k/a Scottal, LLC, and
ACME PATENT CORP. f/k/a Pentagonal Holdings, Inc., and ALAN F.
ZEILINGER and SCOTT E. ZEILINGER, Defendants, CIV. NO. 13-125-SLR
(D.Del.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's Decision dated
July 28, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/jCpRWbfrom
Leagle.com.

Homax Products Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jason
Barrie, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, Eric L. Zalud, J.
Allen Jones, III & Stephen M. Ferguson, Benesch Friedlander Coplan
& Aronoff.

Old Magic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nancy Shane
Rappaport, DLA Piper LLP, Aleine Michelle Porterfield, New Castle
County Law Dept. & Heidi Levine.

Alscott LLC, Defendant, represented by Nancy Shane Rappaport, DLA
Piper LLP & Aleine Michelle Porterfield, New Castle County Law
Dept..

Acme Patent Corp., Defendant, represented by Nancy Shane
Rappaport, DLA Piper LLP & Aleine Michelle Porterfield, New Castle
County Law Dept..

Alan F. Zeilinger, Defendant, represented by Todd C. Schiltz,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Scott E. Zeilinger, Defendant, represented by Nancy Shane
Rappaport, DLA Piper LLP, Aleine Michelle Porterfield, New Castle
County Law Dept., Harold Schwarz & John P. Susany.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand Order in "Humphries" Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion
dated July 23, 2014, vacating a district court's remand order and
remanding a work-related asbestos exposure lawsuit to the district
court for proceedings.  The case involves a lawsuit by John Calvin
Humphries against various defendants arising out of his alleged
work-related exposure to asbestos and subsequent illness.

The appeals case is JOHN CALVIN HUMPHRIES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ELLIOTT COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, formerly known as Elliott
Company, I, formerly known as Elliott Turbomachinery Company,
Incorporated, formerly known as Elliott Holdings, Incorporated,
formerly known as Elliott Company, Defendant-Appellant, No. 14-
30182 (5th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/w8Q2IUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Lawsuit Results in $90-Mil. Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
an asbestos lawsuit filed by 11 families from New Jersey has
resulted in a $90 million award to the families. The plaintiffs
alleged their loved ones died from mesothelioma linked to their
exposure to asbestos. Defendants in the asbestos claims will pay
damages to plaintiffs, with awards to the families ranging from $4
million to $15 million.

According to The Star-Ledger, the lawsuits were filed by family
members of 11 people -- including a mother and daughter -- who
died of mesothelioma. Some of the victims worked at the Johns
Manville Company, while others did not work at the company but
were exposed to asbestos on the clothing of loved ones who did
work at Johns Manville.

After hearing testimony from plaintiffs, the judge awarded $90
million to the plaintiffs. The exact awards vary among the
plaintiffs, with $4 million going to the family of Virginia
Stansley who died at age 81 and $15 million going to the family of
Deborah Ann, who died at age 49.

The defendants in the lawsuit were Anova Holding, AG; and Becon,
AG.

Mesothelioma has been linked to asbestos exposure. According to an
article by Reuters, asbestos exposure is generally defined as two
weeks of constant contact. Of those exposed to asbestos,
approximately one in 20 will develop mesothelioma. Although
mesothelioma has a long latency period -- some patients may not be
diagnosed for decades after exposure, once diagnosed most people
do not live beyond five years.

Patients who develop mesothelioma are often exposed to asbestos at
work, but because asbestos fibers adhere to clothing, many people
who live with those who work with asbestos are also exposed to it.
They are then at a risk for developing asbestos-related diseases
such as mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.

In a different lawsuit, reported on by Legal Newsline, a jury in
Fresno County awarded $10.9 million to the family of a plumber who
alleged he developed mesothelioma during his work as a plumber and
auto mechanic. James Phillips died in 2013, a year after his
diagnosis. He had filed the lawsuit in 2012 shortly after his
diagnosis.

The jury awarded $7.4 million in compensatory damages and $3.5
million in punitive damages after finding the plaintiff showed
reckless indifference.

Lawsuits have been filed against many companies and employers
alleging employees and their loved ones were exposed to asbestos
and were not given proper warning about or protection from
asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tons of Bagged Fibro Remain on Site in Brisbane
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore, writing for The Brisbane Times, reported that smashed
fibre cement sheeting at the partially-demolished Law Courts
Building in Brisbane's George Street was an asbestos risk to site
workers, the president of the Asbestos Industry Association
warned.

Fairfax Media revealed that tons of bagged asbestos remain on the
site at George and Adelaide streets, which has been abandoned for
three weeks.

However the licensed asbestos removal company -- River City
Asbestos Removal -- told Fairfax Media it was worried that smashed
fibre cement roof and wall panels on the partially-demolished site
still contained asbestos.  Tests on these damaged wall panels from
a series of locations were conducted and results would be returned
"early next week", a spokeswoman from the Workplace, Health and
Safety area of the Department of Justice said in July.

The semi-demolished site has still not been declared "safe".

Fairfax Media has seen images of many large bags of asbestos that
are still within the building, but industry concerns have been
raised about damaged fibre-cement ceilings and walls.

AIA president Michael Shepherd said the main risk was to onsite
workers.  "If you get any mechanical abrasion of that sheeting --
cutting, drilling, demolition -- that is likely to release
fibres," he said.

"You certainly don't want people walking over it. We certainly
don't want any tools to come into contact with it.

"We need the material removed by a professional licensed
contractor, or have the site isolated until a professional
licensed contractor come down and remediates that situation.

"The area should be isolated. The area should be cleaned up and
de-contaminated prior to people going back there on site."

He said there was "probably not" a health risk to CBD workers
walking by the site.

"But we want the site cleaned up because workers on site might
walk on it, put machinery over it and make it quite 'friable'
[able to release airborne powders]," he said.

Work has stopped and the semi-demolished prime CBD site has been
abandoned for three weeks. CFMEU workers are protesting outside
about superannuation payments being withheld and worker's safety.
"That is certainly not the favourable condition that we want the
place in," Mr Shepherd said.

"We don't want any form of asbestos broken up in open areas. It
should be contained and bagged and sealed and put into skips that
are sealed."

New site owners Shayher Group, which are building an 82-storey
residential apartment complex on the site, declined to comment.

Unionists protesting outside the building have painted "Positive
for Asbestos" across fencing on the George Street side of the
building.

No-one from the CFMEU returned calls, including the union's
workplace safety manager Andrew Ramsay.

Fairfax Media made 14 calls to four Queensland Government
departments to try to learn who had completed asbestos inspections
of the George Street site.  Calls were made to the departments of
health, environment, public works, and justice -- because it
includes the office of workplace health and safety -- after being
told a two-hour asbestos inspection was made by Queensland Health.

Each of the four government departments has a separate area of
asbestos investigation.

Officers visited the site again and took samples from various
locations. WHSQ has restricted access to the site until test
results have been returned.

The bagged asbestos is still waiting for a new asbestos removal
firm to be given the contract.

"WHSQ is satisfied all necessary steps have been undertaken to
maintain public safety," a spokeswoman said.

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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motherwell Residents Evacuated Over Fibro Dust
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that more than 100 residents evacuated from
flats in Motherwell, Scotland, when asbestos was disturbed by
workers will remain out of their homes over the weekend.

North Lanarkshire Council said all residents had been moved out of
Anderson Tower, Anderson Street, as a precaution.  Some people
were put up in hotels and temporary council accommodation, while
others stayed with friends and family.  Clean-up work on dust
found in halls and lobbies will continue.

The council's housing operations manager Stephen Llewelyn said:
"As a precautionary measure, the contractor has been instructed to
clean all halls and communal areas.

"Tenants will not be able to return to the building until we are
satisfied that this is complete."

Safety standards

He added: "We are confident that any risk is extremely low.
Asbestos generally poses a health risk through exposure over a
long period in high concentrations.

"What we have found is small areas of settled dust.

"We are working closely with Scottish Power, their contractors and
the Health and Safety Executive to ensure all safety standards are
met."

Mr Llewelyn added that residents "fully appreciate" the efforts of
council staff.  He said: "We are very grateful to both the
residents and their families for their support.

"Emptying a block of flats within the timescale was no easy task
and we are pleased that, working with the tenants and their
families, this was a textbook operation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in European Commission Bldg.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luxemburger Post reported that asbestos has been discovered in the
Jean Monnet building in Kirchberg, Luxemburg.  According to
newspaper Le Quotidien, two people have already fallen ill caused
by the hazardous material.

Asbestos fibres can accumulate in within the respiratory tract
and, in some cases, provoke lung cancer.

The material was banned in 1989, but it has been discovered in
various places, such as false ceilings, fire doors and floor tiles
around the Jean Monnet construction.

The building, that opened in 1975, was meant to be in use for 25
years, however it does not fulfil today's safety standards.
Although its lease expires at the end of this year, the new
building construction has been slow, in fact it has not even
started yet. According to Le Quotidien, the new location will be
only be ready in 2022 at the earliest.

For the 1,500 European commission employees working in the
dangerous and outdated building, an alternative must be rapidly
found.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT to Call on Commonwealth to Fund Fibro Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
ACT government will call on a 23-year-old deal with the
Commonwealth to pay for the unfolding crisis over the 1049 houses
which may contain remnants of dangerous Mr Fluffy loose asbestos.
The deal, signed in 1991, acknowledged that it may become
necessary to deal with properties missed in the clean-up or
"remove additional asbestos from properties previously subject to
the program".

If that happened, all costs would be borne according to a formula:
the ACT government pays the first $10 million, the second $10
million is shared half and half and after that the Commonwealth
pays two-thirds, $2 for every $1 spent by the territory.

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher released the memorandum of
understanding after a request from The Canberra Times, saying
while it wasn't a legal document it put a moral obligation on the
federal government.

"We think the framework is there in the MOU to certainly morally
have the Commonwealth at the table," she said.

"And we can't let that go. I just don't think we can accept that
the Commonwealth might not come and help. I really don't see that
as a choice for the Commonwealth either, and I think that the
documentation we have would support that."

The MOU was signed in June 1991.

Also, Canberra's clubs set up a fund to help people caught up in
the crisis. The peak group, Clubs ACT, contributed $10,000 to
kick-start the fund. Chief executive Jeff House said clubs had
already offered accommodation for families.

He called on corporate Canberra to help.  Mr House has set up a
register of clubs and for anyone else prepared to help with
accommodation, money, food or goods and services. "If you're a
hotel, motel or serviced apartment we want to hear from you," he
said. "If you're a restaurant and can offer some cheap meals, we
want to hear from you. If you're a cinema and can offer up some
free tickets, we want to hear from you."

Ms Gallagher unveiled a support package for families this week,
including up to $10,000 plus $2000 for each dependent child for
families forced out of their homes by the discovery of asbestos
fibres left over from the clean-up carried out between 1988 and
1993.

Rates will be deferred while families are out of their homes. The
residents' support group knows of 10 families in that category,
with more expected to come to light as homes are tested.

Ms Gallagher also announced up to $1000 for families still in
their homes who have had to destroy household items contaminated
with asbestos. People in Mr Fluffy homes would be eligible for
help with medical bills and the cost of asbestos testing.

Ms Gallagher said no figure had been put on the package, which was
"a little open-ended", and which she expected would amount to
"several hundred thousand dollars". It would be paid for through
the treasurer's advance and if more became necessary through a new
appropriation.

512 people had registered with the new taskforce, most of them
homeowners, but also tenants and tradespeople.

A taskforce spokeswoman said the money would be allocated on a
case-by-case basis, based on need, with taskforce head Andrew
Kefford taking a "flexible approach". It was still being decided
whether receipts would be required, or statutory declarations, for
money spent.

Mr Kefford was to write to homeowners who have yet to make
contact. A decision has not been made on whether the letter would
go via registered post, the spokeswoman said, with some of the
February letters thought to have gone astray.

Ms Gallagher and Liberal Leader Jeremy Hanson will meet the
federal minister responsible for territories, Jamie Briggs, in
what will be the first political-level discussion on the crisis.
Ms Gallagher said she expected to get a sense of the federal
government's thinking on the longer-term problem -- what to do
with the homes abandoned by their owners and other houses that
might still contain asbestos.

She acknowledged again that houses might need to be demolished.
"If we get to the point where the agreed expert advice is that the
houses can't be remediated, then we will have to take some
decisions," she said. "We don't have that advice yet, but that may
be where it ends up."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms $12-Mil. Judgments
----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York appellate court
has affirmed two asbestos judgments totaling more than $12
million, in part ruling that a defendant in one of the cases could
be held liable for third-party replacement parts since it had a
"substantial interest in having asbestos become the standard
insulation in the components to be placed in its valves."

In the July 3, 3-2 opinion, the New York Appellate Division, 1st
Department, also found that the trial court's decision to
consolidate a construction site exposure case and a U.S. Naval
exposure case was not erroneous.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Union Carbide Axed Over Medical Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reported that the Texas
Supreme Court dismissed an asbestos exposure suit brought against
Union Carbide Corp. by a former employee, saying the man's family
failed to submit sufficient medical evidence required by a law
enacted shortly after he died.

A divided court ruled 5-4 that the family of Joseph Emmite, who
worked as an insulator at Union Carbide for nearly 40 years,
cannot pursue litigation against the company because they are
unable to meet the statutory requirements of a 2005 law for
proving Emmite was suffering from pulmonary impairment as a result
of asbestosis prior to his death.

Known as Chapter 90, the law requires claimants to serve
defendants with a medical report that includes, among other
things, the results of pulmonary testing that demonstrate a
plaintiff's lung function is below a specified threshold. An
alternative "safety valve" provision to the law eliminates the
lung function threshold, but requires that the test results be
interpreted by the physician making the medical report.

The Texas Supreme Court said that the Emmites' medical report did
not meet the standard imposed by Chapter 90 because it included
old test results showing no pulmonary impairment, which their
reviewing medical expert disregarded. The high court rejected the
Emmites' argument that the safety valve provision of Chapter 90
only requires that a lung function test be conducted and reviewed
by their medical expert but that it did not have to support his
conclusions.

"[I]n order to interpret the pulmonary function testing
requirement in the safety valve provision in a manner that
contextually meshes with the remainder of Chapter 90, and yields
nonarbitrary, nonabsurd results, we are compelled to conclude that
the Legislature intended that the testing have some relevance to
the physician's diagnosis of asbestos-related pulmonary
impairment, such as by showing some level of pulmonary impairment,
even though the testing results do not meet the section 90.003
threshold," the high court said in a 34-page opinion.

The court also overruled the Emmites' argument that Chapter 90 is
unconstitutionally retroactive, saying there is no evidence the
family intended to file suit before the law took effect.

"In sum, Chapter 90 did not upset settled expectations of the
Emmites in the constitutional sense to the extent that it
outweighs the compelling public interest found and addressed by
the Legislature -- even though, under these facts, Chapter 90
effectively bars their claim," the opinion said.

In a pair of dissenting opinions, Justices Debra Lehrmann and Jeff
Boyd argued that the high court imposed a requirement the
Legislature did not mandate for eligibility under Chapter 90's
safety valve provision by finding that the lung function test bear
relevance to the medical expert's opinion.

Justice Lehrmann wrote separately that Chapter 90 effectively
required Emmite to submit to a lung function test in the months
leading up to his death before the law was officially on the books
and is therefore unconstitutional as applied to his survivors.

"A plaintiff should not be prevented from recovering for an injury
caused by exposure to asbestos because that exposure has made him
too sick to complete a pulmonary function test. I respectfully
urge the Legislature to reconsider the wisdom of requiring
pulmonary function testing even in Chapter 90's 'safety valve'
provision, at least in those cases in which a doctor has concluded
that such testing would be prohibitive," Justice Lehrmann said.

Union Carbide appealed to the high court in July 2012, after an en
banc ruling from the First District Court of Appeals affirmed a
decision of the Texas Asbestos Multidistrict Litigation pretrial
court refusing to dismiss the wrongful death suit. Emmite died in
June 2005, less than three months before the new procedures and
requirements for claims involving asbestos-related injuries became
effective in the state.

Union Carbide argued Chapter 90 was put in place specifically to
curb the crush of asbestos-related litigation like Emmite's and
told the Supreme Court in its briefing that reading the statute to
allow safety valve claims without evidence of an abnormal
pulmonary function test would allow heirs to "frustrate the
legislative scheme" by using post-mortem evidence of asbestosis
even when the disease had no impact during the deceased person's
life.

But the Emmite family said autopsy evidence and impartial doctor's
reports clearly established Emmite's death was caused by asbestos-
related disease, and said his is an exceptional case to which the
pulmonary function test requirement doesn't apply because he could
show alternative means.

The Emmites are represented by Richard P. Hogan Jr. and Jennifer
Bruch Hogan of Hogan & Hogan LLP, by Troy D. Chandler of Chandler
McNulty LLP and by Steven J. Kherkher of Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas LLP.

Union Carbide is represented by Stephen G. Tipps, Tom Phillips and
Ben Geslison of Baker Botts LLP and by James H. Powers and Sharla
J. Frost of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

The case is Union Carbide Corp. v. Daisy E. Synatzske et al., case
number 12-0617, in the Texas Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Labor Party Pledges Funds for Cancer Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Crookes, writing for The Independent, reported that the
United Kingdom Labour party has pledged to plough more money into
mesothelioma research if the party is elected into power next
year.

Andy Burnham, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, told an
audience outside Manchester Town Hall that he backed a campaign
for greater awareness of the asbestos-related cancer.  He said the
fight had to continue even though he welcomed the Mesothelioma
Bill which was passed by Parliament in March to help sufferers and
their families gain compensation if a liable insurance company
cannot be traced.  He said he would ensure, should he become a
future Labour Government's Health Secretary, that more money would
made available for the ongoing drive to find a cure. He would also
look to encourage donations for research from insurance companies.

"I pledge that more money will be given by government to
research," he said. "Mesothelioma is a terrible disease and more
help must be given. I support those fighting for more money for
research."

Mesothelioma is a disease of the pleural lining of the lungs
caused by exposure to asbestos. It has a latency period of 32
years and it caused more than 2,500 deaths in 2012, a rise of 10
per cent.

Long-term campaigner Lord Alton of Liverpool also spoke in
Manchester during a subsequent public meeting for Action
Mesothelioma Day taking place in the city.  He said: "Much still
needs to be done for mesothelioma sufferers and to fund research
into the disease."  He said men had been sent to work with
asbestos despite decades of knowledge of its ill-effects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Close Goodstart Childcare Centre
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jil Hogan, writing for The Canberra Times, reported in July that
the Goodstart Early Learning childcare centre in Aranda,
Australia, has been closed for a week after an asbestos risk was
identified.  During a routine check to the building, which has
asbestos in it, pinholes and nail holes were detected in the
walls.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said there was no
evidence there had been any asbestos exposure to people at the
centre.  "They've had their monitoring done and there are no
fibres in the air within the building and they've found no fibres
within the precinct of where the children are playing," he said.
"So it's all a precautionary measure at this stage."

Mr McCabe said that, while the holes were considered very low
risk, it was always best not to take any chances when it came to
dealing with asbestos. "They definitely did the right thing
shutting it down and getting it repaired straight away."

Parents were notified of the findings and the centre was closed
thereafter.  While the initial repairs to the walls had been
completed, the centre would carry out further testing to the soil
and outside the building as a precautionary measure, during which
time the centre would remain closed.

"WorkSafe is working with the centre, monitoring that they're
doing everything through all the proper channels and in accordance
with territory laws," said Mr McCabe. "They're doing exactly what
they should be doing."

The scare came in the same week as the announcement that
households affected by Canberra's deadly Mr Fluffy asbestos crisis
would receive immediate financial assistance from the ACT
government.

ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said payments would cover the
cost of emergency accommodation, food, clothing and remediation
works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blamed for Torrington Builder's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that a builder in Torrington,
England, died of "industrial disease" after coming in contact with
asbestos throughout his life.  An inquest into the death of Ronald
Bonfield, of Church Lane, Torrington, was held on July 4 at
Bideford Town Hall.  The 74-year-old died on November 23, 2013.

A pathology report stated that the cause of death was a malignant
mesothelioma -- a form of cancer that causes an abnormal amount of
fluid between thin layers of tissue lining on the outside of the
lung and the wall of the chest cavity.  In Dr Jason Davies' report
it was also recorded that he found asbestos fibres in his lungs.

The court heard that when originally diagnosed with lung cancer,
he was told he only had 18-months to live.  However, in 2009, Mr
Bonfield travelled to Frankfurt, Germany, to undergo treatment to
help prolong his life and to try and reduce the size of the
tumour.  The therapy seemed to work, but in 2011, Mr Bonfield
became increasingly breathless and the following year, he began
palliative chemotherapy.

A statement from his daughter, Jeanette Benfield was read out in
court.  She said her father was born in London and had begun his
career in the building trade at the BBC studio's, building and
painting ceilings and sets.  Throughout his life, he worked on
various building sites and at one point set up his own business
called, Bonfield Builders.  His daughter revealed that she
believed he had come into contact with asbestos many times during
his career but she thought that when he was in his 30's, he was
exposed the most.  He was working for a local authority in London
at the time, where he would be rubbing down asbestos laden pipes
outside people's houses.  He also never wore any protective
clothing during the time.

The court also heard that the GBP18,000 that he received as a pay-
out from the Government for coming into contact with asbestos was
used to fund his treatment in Germany.

Coroner John Tomalin agreed with the pathologist's cause of death
and agreed the tumour was caused by exposure to asbestos.  He
concluded Mr Bonfield's death was from "industrial disease".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Awarded for Bringing Trader to Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thisisthewestcountry.co.uk reported that a group of residents from
Kingsbridge, England, have been recognized for their bravery in
bringing a rogue trader to justice following an investigation by
Devon and Somerset Trading Standards.

The three residents along with Sergeant Rachel Ward and Trading
Standards Officer, David Keys are the proud recipients of the
Trading Standards Heroes Award, given out a glitzy ceremony in
Harrogate on July 3.  The event, organized and hosted by the
Trading Standards Institute recognises acts of bravery or hard
work which have made an outstanding contribution to consumer
protection.

In this case, 30 year old Daniel John Paul Ward from Yorkshire had
performed sub-standard work at the victims' properties,
overcharged them and dumped building material including asbestos
in nearby countryside.  The investigation began when the three
separate flytips were reported to South Hams District Council and
traced back to Ward and the police and Trading Standards were then
called in as part of a wider investigation into matters after a
concerned resident passed a flyer, distributed on doorsteps by
Ward to the local neighbourhood Police beat officer for
Kingsbridge.

The subsequent joint investigation by Devon and Somerset Trading
Standards Service also involved officers from Devon and Cornwall
Police and South Hams District Council's Environmental Protection
team.

On one property he charged the elderly occupant GBP700 for a damp
proof coating, when he simply coated some of the house wall below
the damp proof course with paint.

Once arrested Ward denied being involved, but he was picked out in
an identification parade and his fingerprint was found on the
cheque book of one of his victims.

The three victims who were all elderly and were suffering from
various conditions, supported the investigation and all gave
evidence crucial to the case.  The victims were subjected to
intimidating and agressive behaviour, made worse by the fact that
they were frail and in one gentleman's case, very hard of hearing.
The defendant used threatening language when demanding payment
which caused great distress for the residents leaving them fearful
and extremely anxious.

Sergeant Rachel Ward and Trading Standards Officer David Keys
collected the award on behalf of the residents but also for their
own work in bringing the case to court.  David says: "A rogue
builder ripped off elderly customers by charging them up to three
times the fair price for shoddy and unnecessary work. Dan Ward of
Master Roofing targeted elderly customers including an 88 year old
frail widow and a gentleman who was very hard of hearing. The
actions of the defendant left the victims very scared and
concerned about retribution, if giving evidence against him.

To make matters worse Mr Ward allowed asbestos and other waste to
be dumped across the South Hams countryside, which the judge in
the case described as the 'scourge' of Devon."

Cabinet member with responsibility for Trading Standards in Devon,
Roger Croad said: "I would like to extend my thanks and
appreciation to both the residents, officers and police who all
played their part in this investigation.

"This was a undoubtedly a stressful and unpleasant experience for
the victims concerned. The fact that they were able to overcome
their fears and give evidence was essential in acheiving a
successful result.

"Not only does it send out a message to the perpetrators of such
crimes, it demonstrates excellent working practice by both the
Trading Standards team and our partners."

South Hams District Council's Executive Member for Environmental
Services Cllr Rufus Gilbert said: "The Judge stated that fly
tipping was'the scourge of people living in Devon' and I totally
echo that sentiment, particularly on behalf of the residents of
the South Hams.

"This is an appalling case where the defendant not only targeted
elderly people to make money from them but he also allowed
asbestos, which can pose a serious risk to health, to be fly
tipped in three separate locations across the South Hams.

"The Council takes fly tipping very seriously and we will
prosecute any known offender to ensure that the beauty of the
South Hams is not marred."

The Hero Award is held at the annual Trading Standards and
consumer Affairs Conference.  It celebrates outstanding
contributions by individuals or groups of people to consumer
protection. They are the 'unsung heroes' who have gone above and
beyond their duty to make a difference.  The winners were
nominated by the Devon and Somerset Trading Standards Service.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Ourimbah's Brush Road
---------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Gleeson, writing for New Castle Herald, reported that a
large stretch of road in Ourimbah, in New South Wales, is covered
in asbestos and barriers have been erected to block motorist
access until the area is decontaminated.  A Wyong council
spokeswoman said that the asbestos ranged from 240 to 380 Brush
Road.  The incident is suspected to have arisen due to an illegal
dumping of the substance, a Fire and Rescue NSW spokesman said.

"The first call we received was at 9.50am with reports a 1km
section of road appeared to be covered in asbestos," he said.

"Our last message was at 11.59am saying there were 25 to 30 piles
of asbestos thrown from the back of a ute."

He said that HAZMAT, Fire and Rescue NSW trucks and Wyong Council
workers are on scene.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More People Affected by Fibro Coming Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a group representing owners of asbestos-
contaminated homes says new people are coming forward to share
their concerns.

Dangerous loose-fill amosite asbestos was installed by insulation
company Mr Fluffy during the 1960s and 1970s.  A Commonwealth
clean-up program between 1988 and 1993 was thought to have fixed
the problem in 1,049 homes, but fibres have since been found in
some houses.

So far about 500 people associated with Mr Fluffy homes have
registered with the asbestos taskforce set up by the ACT
Government to help them access support.  More than 300 homeowners
attended a meeting to put their concerns directly to Chief
Minister Katy Gallagher.

One homeowner told the meeting he only found out about the scare
two weeks ago, and others spoke about their fear every time they
go to the doctor for health checks.

Mr Fluffy lobby group's Brianna Heseltine said many more were only
just realising they may be affected.

"People are ringing me almost every third day saying they didn't
know they were in one of these homes or they've just bought one of
these homes," she said.

"It's devastating for these families, they find out not only are
they possibly living around asbestos in their living areas but
they are facing financial ruin."

Data released by the ACT Government last month showed there were
more than 1,000 homes affected by Mr Fluffy asbestos, spread
widely across 70 Canberra suburbs.

The Government has announced some relief funding and is still
trying to make contact with all affected homeowners and residents.

Joined by ACT Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson, ACT senators and
asbestos response taskforce head Andrew Kefford at the meeting, Ms
Gallagher said she understood the health advice circulated on
asbestos issues did not answer everybody's questions.

"It's very low risk but it's good to minimise your risk, [that] is
essentially the health advice in a nutshell," she said.

"It's very, very difficult to get anything stronger than that from
the doctors."

Ms Gallagher said information about the Mr Fluffy asbestos risk
has been sent to general practitioners in ACT, as well information
about access to counselling services available to affected
residents.

"The first point of contact if people are concerned is to be
referred to their GP," she said.

But Ms Gallagher once more called on the Commonwealth to honour a
memorandum of understanding signed in 1991.

The memorandum tied the Federal Government to funding if Mr Fluffy
contamination caused further problems.

"I can't believe that it isn't on their radar and we need them to
engage," Ms Gallagher said.

"The Commonwealth were the authority responsible when this
material was pumped into people's roof, they took responsibility
to get it out of people's roofs, we now know it's still in
people's house, and I think they should take responsibility for
dealing with this for once and for all."

Ms Gallagher said she is now seeking an urgent meeting with
Employment Minister Eric Abetz after some confusion over who was
the relevant federal minister.  It was initially thought to be
Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
Jamie Briggs, but the ABC now understands it falls under the
portfolio of Mr Abetz.

Ms Gallagher also called for more owners and residents to register
with the asbestos response taskforce that has been set up to
tackle the issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Unlikely to Have Died From Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Souther Daily Echo reported that an inquest was held into the
death of a pensioner as it was suspected that he had come into
contact with asbestos.

Raymond John Reader died of lung cancer on April 7 at Royal
Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester, England.  The inquest at
Southampton Coroner's Court heard that the 66-year-old, from
Balldown Farm Cottages, Northwood, Sparsholt, had jobs which could
have caused him to come into contact with the industrial material.

However, a post-mortem examination revealed that asbestos was not
likely to have caused his death.  Assistant coroner Simon Burge
recorded that Mr Reader died of natural causes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Plumber Dies of Fibro Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired plumber died after
working with asbestos more than 50 years ago.

David Alfred Marten's sister told an inquest how the industrial
material had been 'like snow' at F W Cook and Co Ltd.  The 77-
year-old, from Chandler's Ford, had left school at 15, taking up a
plumbing apprenticeship with the company in The Strand,
Southampton, England.

Valery Benham told the inquest at Southampton Coroner's Court: "In
those days you didn't know it [asbestos] was dangerous. I think it
was like snow."  Mr Marten left at 21, after serving in the armed
forces, and worked at British American Tobacco in Millbrook for 25
years. He died at Brockdale House Care Home in Hursley Road,
Chandler's Ford, on September 27 last year.

Simon Burge, assistant coroner for central Hampshire, concluded
that Mr Marten had died of heart and lung failure as a result of
bronchopneumonia and extensive bilateral plural plaques, caused by
contact with asbestos, most likely during his apprenticeship.  He
recorded that Mr Marten had died of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Object to Garlock's Bar Date Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that asbestos claimants intending on filing claims against the
debtors in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy case have
objected to a proposed bar date plan that establishes a deadline
for when settled asbestos claims must be submitted.

The debtors -- which include Garlock, Garrison Litigation
Management Group and The Anchor Packing Company -- requested a bar
date on April 28 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

A bar date in a bankruptcy proceeding is a deadline for asbestos
victims or companies to make their claims against Garlock, which
is intended to prevent surprise claims from arising.

On May 16, the Future Claims Representative sided with the
debtors.

Representative Joseph W. Grier III claims a bar date will provide
certainty as to the pool of existing settled claims, both disputed
and undisputed, which will permit reliable provision for such
claims under any plan of reorganization.

Judge George Hodges appointed Grier just after a Jan. 10
bankruptcy ruling in favor of Garlock, ordering the gasket
manufacturer to put $125 million in an asbestos trust -- roughly
$1 billion less than what plaintiffs' representatives felt was
proper. In his decision, Hodges noted how attorneys had been
withholding evidence while pursuing claims against Garlock.

However, the official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants moved to adjourn the debtors' request for a bar date,
arguing that it cannot take a position on the proposed bar date
due to the debtors' plan of payment. The debtors plan to pay
settled asbestos claims in full, which could raise issues of
"desperate [sic] treatment" between settled claims, allowed
unliquidated claims and future claims, the committee claims.

Therefore, the committee wanted to first see an amended plan of
reorganization before the bar date request is heard.

Hodges granted the committee's motion to adjourn the bar date
motion on May 22

"The debtors may file and serve an amended notice of hearing
regarding the bar date motion when or after the debtors have filed
a proposed amended plan of reorganization and disclosure
statement," Hodges wrote.

After Garlock submitted its Amended Plan of Reorganization on May
29, the committee again objected to the bar date proposal on June
20.

Five days later, the debtors responded to the committee's
objections, addressing each one individually.

The committee suggested cutting off the claims resolution process
before proofs of claims are filed in their objections.

The debtors explain that there is a "substantial uncertainty"
regarding the number of settled Garlock claims; and in their
amended plan, the debtors intend on paying all claims in full,
which can be difficult to prepare for when the number of claims
are unknown.

"To accomplish this, debtors plan to move aggressively to resolve
as many settled Garlock asbestos claims as possible," the debtors
stated.

However, the committee suggested that the court eliminate the
claims process, requiring debtors and claimants to return to the
court before attempting to resolve claims through the standard
bankruptcy process.

Furthermore, the committee predicts that the process would yield
"uncontrolled allowance proceedings [that] would impede the
fundamental bankruptcy goal of speedy and efficient
reorganization."

The debtors argue there is no basis to predict the number of
claims that may be filed or the extent and magnitude of potential
disputes.

The debtors "should not be made to speculate about the extent of
these obligations when the Code offers a process that will
facilitate resolution," the response states. "Until the Code
process proves unworkable, the Court should decline the
Committee's demand to restrict that process before it even
starts."

Unsatisfied by the bar date timing, the committee also seeks to
change it to a 90-day time period.

While the debtors believe extending the time period is unnecessary
for settled claimants to file their claims, they are willing to
agree to the extension in order to avoid any further delay in the
claiming process. Therefore, the bar date was extended to Sept.
30.

However, the debtors were not so accommodating with the
committee's request for an extension of time for schedule
revisions, arguing that the debtors expect to file updated
schedules before service of the bar date and don't want to allow
for uncertainty from additional amendments.

"Debtors are giving broad notice designed to make all putative
claimants aware of the settled claims bar date," they wrote.
"There is no reason why settled claimants cannot file their
claims, scheduled or not, within the 90 days the committee has
requested."

"Parties in interest, in addition to debtors, have a need for
finality," the debtors continued. "Permitting additional settled
claims to be lodged, at any time though amendments to debtors'
schedules, would not provide the finality the bar date process is
designed to achieve."

Furthermore, the committee seeks to eliminate the finality effect
of the bar date, raising concerns about settled Garlock claimants'
ability to vote.

The debtors argue this proposal should be rejected. For the bar
date to work, it "must raise a bar against unfiled settled
claims."

Specifically, it must be made clear that failure to file timely
proof of claim forms will bar claimants asserting settled claims.
Instead, they would have to file unsettled, unliquidated claims.

The debtors explain that the committee is correct in assuming that
claimants filing in an untimely manner would not be able to vote
as a settled claimant.

On the other hand, the debtors added that the "committee is wrong
to suggest that a late-filed claimant would be barred from voting
on a proposed plan of reorganization. The settled claims bar date
would permit such a claimant to vote as a [Garlock] asbestos
claimant."

During Garlock's estimation trial, Legal Newsline appealed Hodges'
decision sealing portions of the trial and documents associated
with it.

After Hodges' ruling, several common asbestos defendants filed
similar motions requesting access to sealed Rule 2019 filings.

Hodges originally granted access to Rule 2019 filings on May 6
after previously denying the same request for several defendant
companies that believe they may have been victimized by the
withheld evidence and have fought for access to the sealed
information.

The committee filed an appeal to the order granting access to the
Rule 2019 filings the same day access was approved.

Just one day later he stayed the order granting access to the
documents pending the Committee's appeal.

On June 11, Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., concluded that due to the
large number of redundant filings stretched over nine separate
cases, the court would consolidate the cases seeking to unseal
documents under the first action filed, which is Legal Newsline's
appeal for access to estimation proceeding documents.

Cogburn scheduled a hearing for the consolidated cases on July 15
to address all pending motions, including the formal motions to
consolidate filed in early June, which will still be heard.

For the same reason, Legal Newsline's remaining appeal after being
shut out of the courtroom during the estimation proceeding was
also consolidated on July 2 for the motion hearing.

Several defendants filed responses to the motions to unseal, but
the court granted their request to file the unredacted responses
under seal on July 1.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indictment of French Mayor Quashed
---------------------------------------------------
Anthony Torres, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reported
that the Paris Appeals Court has quashed the indictment on charges
of homicide and involuntary injury of former Socialist Party
national secretary and current mayor of Lille, Martine Aubry,
brought in November 2012 in relation to a scandal over deaths due
to asbestos.

This ruling follows that of May 2013, which already covered up the
role of Aubry and eight other people, including senior civil
servants, scientists and industrialists who were members of the
Permanent Committee on Asbestos (CPA). They were being sued by the
Andeva asbestos victims association in connection with the affair
at the Ferodo-Valeo factory in Conde-sur-Noireau in Normandy,
where more than 300 hundred people were found to be suffering from
work-related diseases.

The justice system is moving to cover up one of the biggest
industrial crimes of the ruling Socialist Party. Martine Aubry and
the PS bear a heavy responsibility in the deaths due to asbestos
of hundreds of thousands of workers, having delayed the reduction
in the use of asbestos and trampled safety standards necessary to
protect workers' health.

According to health authorities, asbestos is responsible for 10 to
20 percent of lung cancers. By 2025, over 100,000 deaths will have
resulted from asbestos contamination. These figures are an
underestimation, however, as the French Agency for Health and
Safety at Work and the Environment, Affset (now ANSES), has
revealed that fine asbestos fibres, which were not included in the
measurements, are also carcinogenic. Short asbestos fibres, which
were also not counted, may be carcinogenic as well.

The reaction of Martine Aubry to the Court's decision was
contemptuous and dishonest. "It is of course a relief," she said,
"even if I never doubted the final legal decision. It is very
painful for me, my family, and many others . . . I believe that
everyone knows that I have never done anything other than that
which I was supposed to do, taking into account the knowledge
existing at the time. That has always been stated, by the public
prosecutor of course, but also -- and this for me was the most
important -- by Andeva, the association for the victims of
asbestos."

Former examining magistrate Marie-Odile Bertella-Geffroy, who
launched the enquiry, blamed Aubry, director of labour relations
at the Ministry of Labour in 1984-87, for having delayed the
transcription into French law of the European directive of 1983,
which reinforced protections for workers.

At the time, the magistrate highlighted the responsibility of the
CPA, on which the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) union sat,
which had "efficiently defended the controlled use of asbestos in
order to maximise the delay until its prohibition", as Le Monde
reported.

The responsibility of the former PS national secretary was
demonstrated by this examining magistrate. By defending the
interests of the industries connected to asbestos, Aubry blocked
the European directive to limit asbestos use, so companies could
continue raking in profits. It was only after Aubry's departure
from the Ministry of Labour in 1987 that the directive was passed.

The claim by Aubry that she acted in accordance with the
scientific knowledge of asbestos at the time is false. Other
countries had already prohibited asbestos in the 1980s, and the
dangers linked to asbestos had been known since the start of the
1900s.

An article in l' Humanite in May 1914, which the Andeva
association published in one of their bulletins, states that in
the asbestos workshops "men can hold out five years, the women can
barely hold out two years, in these workshops where the dust
accumulates. In just one factory where one hundred workers are
active, one man dies every week during the four months of the bad
season. And that is the case from 1900 to 1906."
In 1964, researchers made the connection between asbestos and the
development of cancer.

Aubry cynically attempted to place responsibility for the numerous
deaths on the heads of company bosses: "It has been 10 years since
the victims and their families of asbestos have been waiting for a
criminal trial of the real people responsible. There are employers
who have not respected the regulations, it is they who today must
be prosecuted, as quickly as possible. Those asbestos diseases are
terrible, they are often fatal. Those responsible must be
convicted."

Employers have certainly not respected the regulations, but they
could do so because of the reactionary role of Aubry, who defended
the bosses whose interests she hypocritically criticizes today. As
Le Monde reminds us, a Senate report criticized the state for its
"deficient management" of the asbestos dossier.

The quashing of the indictment of Aubry also underlines the role
of the law of senator Pierre Fauchon in 2000, which modified the
penal code, demanding a high burden of proof in order to prosecute
people for unintentional crimes. This law first of all served to
whitewash another PS crime, the contaminated blood affair--in
which the PS government of Laurent Fabius and President Francois
Mitterrand blocked the testing of stocks of blood contaminated by
the AIDS and hepatitis C viruses.

In 2002, the justice system dismissed the case against Laurent
Schweitzer, a former Fabius aide that was head of the Renault auto
corporation, and also dismissed cases against ministerial advisers
to PS Health Minister Edmond Herve.

Lawyers specialised in public health lawsuits expressed concern
that the interpretation given to the Fauchon law would render any
prosecution for health offensives impossible. Lawyer Francois
Hornorat told AFP: "Since the Fauchon law, we are confronted with
a problem of proof".

The judicial decisions placing politicians and bureaucrats beyond
the reach of prosecution show the class character of the French
justice system. There is no independent justice, but a justice in
the service of the bourgeoisie, who consciously and with
complicity of the unions have overseen the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of workers, supposedly in the name of defending jobs.

In spite of the recommendations by ANSES concerning the physical
integrity of workers handling asbestos, the norms in force in
France continue today to threaten workers' health. The memos
addressed to the works inspectors indicate that the recommended
limit on asbestos will not be applied before 2015. The inspectors
are even forbidden to demand that employers respect the Affset
recommendations.

The director general for labour, Jean-Denis Combrexelle,
demonstrated the real interests defended by this organisation when
he explained that the measures were not in place "because
companies were not ready."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Fraud Insurers Sue THAN 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns Defense Verdict in Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reported that a McLean County jury recently entered a
verdict in favor of an insulation distributor, seller and
installer in a pipefitter's asbestos lawsuit.

On June 19, the jury found in favor defendant Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation of Illinois in Circuit Judge Paul Lawrence's court.

Plaintiff Jana Frank, as special administrator of the estate of
Charles Goodwin, filed the complaint in February 2008.  She
alleged her father Charles Goodwin developed lung cancer as a
result of asbestos exposure, which eventually caused his death in
February 2007.

Goodwin worked as a plumber-pipefitter in the construction
industry at various locations throughout Illinois from 1962 until
2006.  His job sites included power plants in the Illinois cities
of Morris, Baldwin, Clinton and Cordova, as well as non-power
plant sites, including an army ammunition plan in Burlington,
Iowa.  Through his work as a pipefitter, Goodwin was allegedly
exposed to and inhaled airborne asbestos dust, causing him to
develop lung cancer in June 2006.

The plaintiffs blamed Sprinkmann for manufacturing and selling
asbestos-containing insulation, including Unibestos pipe
insulation, which was used at Goodwin's various work locations.

Goodwin's next of kin includes his wife Donna Goodwin, sons Tim
and Robert Goodwin, daughter Heidi Ensign and daughter Jana Frank.

Sprinkmann Sons was represented by Cathy Molchin of Cathy Molchin,
P.C. in Mapleton, Ill. and Douglas Sinars of Matushek, Nilles &
Sinars in Chicago and Edwardsville.

Frank was represented by Wylder Corwin Kelly of Bloomington.

The asbestos firm has in the past has alleged conspiracy among
manufacturers and distributors of materials containing asbestos.
The Fourth District Appellate Court has rejected the theory,
wiping out multi-million dollar verdicts in 2012 and 2013. The
court also upheld a McLean County judge's order granting summary
judgment to asbestos defendants last year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Bradford Schools Asked to Comply With Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telegraph & Argus reported that two schools in Bradford, England,
were given improvement notices by the Health and Safety executive
for failing to comply with asbestos regulations.  But the schools,
both free from Council control, say they have since complied with
the rules, and that no serious asbestos problems have been found.

The Health and Safety Executive visited 153 non council controlled
schools around the country over several months as part of study to
see how aware they were of asbestos regulations. Forty four were
given written advice, and enforcement action was taken against 20
of these schools, including Dixons Trinity Academy and Netherleigh
and Rossefield School in Bradford. Both were given improvement
notices -- Netherleigh and Rossefield, which is an independent
primary school, for having no asbestos survey, and Dixons Trinity
Academy, a free school, for having no asbestos survey or asbestos
management plan.

Ryecroft Primary School, Fulneck School in Pudsey and Malsis
School in Keighley were also inspected, and found to be complying
with regulations.

Independent schools, free schools and academies are free from
council control, and so responsible for their own health and
safety procedures.

A spokesman for Dixons Trinity Academy said the inspection had
taken place some time ago, adding: "We took up the building in
September 2013 and no asbestos concerns had been raised during
construction. In December we had contact with the HSE and under
their guidance carried out a full asbestos survey.

"In common with other buildings of this age, there was a limited
amount of asbestos present in limited access areas. We now have a
full management plan in place and this includes training for
relevant staff."

Mary Midgley, head of Netherleigh and Rossefield School said the
school, said the school has since had a survey, and no asbestos
was found.

Teaching unions have raised concerns about the number of schools
that needed to be warned about asbestos management. Ian Murch,
Bradford spokesman of the National Union of Teachers, said: "A
large organisation like a council has a dedicated asbestos unit
whose job it is to know the location of asbestos and how to work
around it in a way that doesn't release fibres. When that
responsibility falls to an individual school they may lose sight
of the issue."

Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, said: "These
results are yet another example of where increased 'freedoms' and
fragmentation of the system lead to important statutory and good
practice provisions being ignored.

"It is alarming and disturbing that nearly a third of schools were
either given written advice or served with an improvement notice
regarding deficiencies in their asbestos management."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Scheduled at 2 Westfield Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted LaBorde, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the city of
Westfield will use $63,180 in surplus funds to finance asbestos
removal at Westfield Vocational-Technical High School and Franklin
Avenue Elementary School, in Massachusetts.

The City Council approved the appropriation from the city's
stabilization account during its regular meeting.

The council in June approved nearly $100,000 in surplus cash for
the vocational school and Westfield High School. Those funds will
pay for new sound deflection is the auto body repair shop and
improved technology in two computer classrooms at the vocational
high school. Work approved late in July for Westfield High will
upgrade that school's wireless technology.

School Business Manager Ronald R. Rix said the $63,180 is needed
to complete asbestos remediation at Franklin Avenue and the high
school.

"We want to complete this project during the summer recess. The
cost is just beyond our means at this time," he said.

Officials plan to relocate Franklin Avenue students to a school
proposed for Ashley Street. Despite that plan, the asbestos still
must be removed from the area of the boiler in the basement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sparks Row at Warsop Allotments
------------------------------------------------------
Chad.co.uk reported that an allotment holder in Warsop, England,
has slammed Mansfield District Council for its powerlessness to
enforce the removal of asbestos from an adjacent plot.

The council's environmental health department confirmed a report
that cement sheeting had been buried at Ridgeway Lane allotments.
But the authority said there was no imminent risk to public health
a unless the sheeting was disturbed, so it had advised the
association which runs the allotment how to remove it and agreed
to oversee the removal.

Graham White (56), of Hammerwater Drive, Warsop, said: "I am
concerned because it is illegal to bury asbestos across the board.

"If the council cannot enforce the removal of this material then
there is no deterrent to stop others doing the same.

"I am an allotment user myself, so does this mean I can bury
asbestos and stick two fingers up at Environmental Health?

"It makes you wonder why people are paying taxes for a body like
this. They should be able to prosecute."

Alan Crossman, secretary of Warsop Allotments and Leisure
Gardeners' Association, said two-three sheets of asbestos had been
buried at the plot in question but there was no danger of the land
being cultivated so there was no risk to public health.

Coun Mick Barton, Mansfield District Council's portfolio holder
for public protection, said: "We have registered the allotment on
our contaminated land database and asked the association to
document the contamination as there could be issues if the
sheeting was disturbed.

"We have advised them about how to remove it safely and legally
and agreed to oversee the removal so that we can update our
records when completed.

"As the risk is being adequately managed, we cannot legally force
the association to remove the sheeting."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Diagnosed With Cancer Raises Fibro Awareness
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Grimshaw, writing for The Bristol Post, reported that Ray
Johnson was told he only had 18 months to live after being
diagnosed with terminal cancer caused by deadly asbestos dust.
But 19 months later and Ray, from Horfield, says apart from
tiredness, he feels as healthy as ever.

The 74-year-old has vowed to live every day to the full until his
illness takes its grip. He is now raising awareness about the
dangers of being exposed to asbestos fibres for a prolonged time.
He wants all employers to offer their staff the correct protection
to ensure other lives are not lost unnecessarily.

Ray worked as an engineer during the 1960s, fitting steam pipes
filled with asbestos.  The dangers of asbestos were unknown at
this time, so Ray would spend his days surrounded by it.  It took
almost 50 years for him to realize the damage this had on his
lungs.  Illnesses caused by asbestos normally take decades to
develop. He said the first sign was a severe, persistent cough.

Ray said: "My wife saw an advert on the television about asbestos
and told me I should see the doctor about my cough.

"I was booked in for a scan straight away and they found there was
asbestos in my lungs.

"I was obviously shocked when I was told they knew what I had got
but couldn't do more than ease the symptoms."

Ray was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that
effects the lining of lungs. He said: "I try to live every day to
the full.

"We don't want to be downbeat. I have already lasted longer than
doctors expected."

To mark the occasion a group of sufferers and health workers
released doves outside the M Shed, as a symbol of hope for those
affected by asbestos.

Among the crowd was the chair of Bristol and Beyond Asbestos
Family Support, Sarah Smith.  The cancer nurse specialist, who is
based at Southmead Hospital, said around 30 to 40 people were
diagnosed with mesothelioma in north Bristol each year.  She said:
"The illness has an unbelievable impact on the whole family.

"Normally when someone finds out they have mesothelioma they
realise other people in the family will have been exposed to
asbestos too.

"When a man used to come home, his wife would clean his clothes
and hang them out to dry around the kids. The clothes will still
have the dust on, so it would impact on everyone's life."

The main symptoms of the illness include a cough, shortness of
breath and pain in the lower back.

The 47-year-old added: "It's important people know about
mesothelioma because the earlier someone is diagnosed the more
treatment is available.

"No matter how early a person is diagnosed they can't be a cure.

"But we can offer people a better quality of life with the right
treatment."

Mesothelioma kills around 2,500 people across the UK each year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Store Fibro Removal to Cost $166,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roberts, writing for Sheboygan Press, reported that the City
of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, has agreed to pay half of the $166,000
required to remove asbestos and lead found at the former Boston
Store property on North Eighth Street.

The Common Council unanimously passed a resolution authorizing
payment to remove the substances, which were documented in June in
a report by Cardinal Environmental, Inc., an environmental health
and safety consulting firm. The funds will come out of the
$250,000 already allocated for the building's demolition.

Boston Store closed its doors in January of this year, ending the
property's 125-year run that began with H.C. Prange Co in 1887.
The city purchased the property from a California-based real
estate investment in March. Though it was valued at $3.7 million
in 2012, the city paid just $500,000.

According to the EPA, exposure to asbestos, which can be released
during demolition or remodeling, increases the risk of lung
disease, mesothelioma and asbestosis, a "serious progressive,
long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs."

Ald. Don Hammond explained at the meeting that the city's offer to
buy the property was contingent on a "Phase II" inspection to
certify the property as clear of lead and asbestos.  When asbestos
was found, primarily in the basement area, the city went back to
the seller to negotiate.

"We went back to them and said, you should pay for the costs. They
said no," said David Gass, president of the city's Business
Improvement District.

As the city paid what Gass called a "bottom price" of only
$500,000 for the building, they agreed to share the cost of
removing the substances up to $83,000.

Before the city closes on the deal, the seller of the property
will obtain certification from Cardinal Environmental, Inc. that
all asbestos and lead have been removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hudson Middle School Abatement Project Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Troglen, writing for Hudson Times, reported that the Hudson
Board of Education voted unanimously to approve a contact with
HEPA Environmental Services, not to exceed $24,240, for the Hudson
Middle School Asbestos Abatement Project.

The program was established more than 20 years ago to remove
asbestos tile from the school district.  The money will come from
the permanent improvement fund, according to the district.

"We have a minimal amount of asbestos in some ceiling tile at the
middle school," according to Chuck Schilling, district supervisor
of facility services.

The removal is part of the district-wide Asbestos Management Plan.

"We will try to remove the tie-in phases over the next three to
four years," Schilling said. "Because the tile location is out of
reach, and the management plan we have in place, the tile does not
pose a problem for students and staff."

The contractor will remove the ceiling tiles, which will be
replaced with non asbestos tiles by district staff, Schilling
said.

The HEPA Environmental Services project began June 16 and was to
end July 18.

Schilling reiterated that the tile poses no danger to staff or
students.

"There is no danger because we have a management plan in place
that was established in 1989 and I have been overseeing for the
past 25 years," Schilling said.

The original building was constructed in 1928 with additions in
1929, 1955, 1961, 1972 and major renovations in 1989 and 1990,
Schilling said.  The ceiling tiles were installed during the 1972
addition/renovation project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Homeowners Fear Backlash
----------------------------------------------------
Markus Mannheim, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
"vast majority" of Canberra home owners whose properties contain
deadly asbestos fibres want the ACT government to prevent the
public from discovering which houses are theirs, the Chief
Minister says.

However, Katy Gallagher is concerned the lack of information poses
a risk to renters and tradespeople, and will soon decide on new
measures to alert them.

At a closed meeting, Ms Gallagher and the head of her government's
asbestos taskforce, Andrew Kefford, spoke to hundreds of people
affected by Mr Fluffy asbestos -- dangerous, loose-fill insulation
installed in many ACT homes in the 1970s.

The government twice rejected a Canberra Times freedom of
information request for the list of more than 1000 properties
known to be affected, saying home owners' rights to privacy
outweighed the public-health benefits in identifying the sites.

Ms Gallagher said she personally preferred the option of
publishing more details.

"But a very large number of Mr Fluffy owners don't want that
information out there and I think that, at this time, I have to
respect their privacy," she said.

"They are concerned that once it's identified as a Mr Fluffy
house, they will be subjected to [public] hysteria and ... all the
stress that comes with that. They're under enormous financial
pressure at the moment as it is without having to deal with that,
too."

In June, the government reminded real estate agents to disclose
the presence of loose-fill asbestos to people who lived or worked
in an affected property.  However, Ms Gallagher said further
measures were needed to safeguard renters and tradespeople.

"We're looking at several options. I've had advice on tagging the
houses -- in the electricity box, for example. So, if you're a
tradesperson you can open the electricity box and see that it's a
Mr Fluffy house," she said.

"This offers protection to renters and tradespeople without
necessarily identifying these homes more broadly."

The Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group, which represents
some of the affected home owners and tenants, says it wants
tradespeople, home buyers and others to be told of the risks of
exposure, but it supports the government's decision to suppress
the list of properties from publication.

The group says some of its members fear "destructive vandalism"
and others have decided not to tell their children about the
asbestos so as to avoid upsetting them unnecessarily.

Mr Kefford had earlier denied access to the list of affected
properties, citing privacy concerns and also the sensitivity of
federal bureaucrats and ministers.  He said Commonwealth officials
could regard publishing the list as provocative and, as a result,
be less willing to negotiate with the ACT in good faith.

". . . in pursuit of negotiations with the Commonwealth in
relation to contaminated land more generally in the territory,
agreement was reached at head-of-agency level that it would be
undesirable to play out negotiations in the media and that actions
in this regard by either party would likely stall or derail those
discussions," he wrote in response to an FOI request.

"lt is also my view that actions on the part of territory
officials that might be seen as megaphone diplomacy or
deliberately provocative in bringing attention to a particular
issue is likely to hinder future co-operation by the Commonwealth
in relation to the program, and potentially prejudice the flow of
information between jurisdictions . . ."

However, Mr Kefford rejected an earlier argument posed by an ACT
official, who had said publishing the list might "unreasonably
harm" landlords' ability to profit from their properties.
The ACT and federal government are negotiating the costs of
repairing the Canberra homes. A federal program in the 1980s and
1990s failed to adequately remove the asbestos.

The relevant federal minister, Eric Abetz, declined to say whether
the Commonwealth would be offended if a list of the affected
properties was published. Senator Abetz's spokesman said the
"ACT's freedom of information process is entirely a matter for
them [ACT officials]".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Left Near Playground
------------------------------------------------
Lydia Roberts, writing for The Armidale Express, reported that
children and staff at Armidale Community Preschool, in New South
Wales, may have been exposed to asbestos after a nearby cottage
was removed in July 2013.

Director Sue Motley first knew of the illegal dump was when she
received a $8380 bill to pay for the clean up.

"It was a shock and as a non-for-profit preschool, there was no
way we could afford to pay the bill," Ms Motley said.

While the area is now safe, Ms Motley is trying to find the
culprit who left the mess behind, but so far to no avail.

The problem began shortly after the fibro cottage was removed in
blocks from the site, owned by the pre-school, to make way for a
purpose-built facility for early intervention.

"We watched the house being removed," Ms Motley said.

Rossbuild Constructions was tasked with building the Allingham
Street facility, but when their workers arrived at the site
to begin work, they discovered the pile of rubbish left behind by
the contractor.  It was not until they disposed of the rubbish at
the Armidale Landfill facility they were told of the asbestos.

Rossbuild spokesman Mar McLellan said the asbestos was uncovered
in eave sheets.

"We had no way of knowing there was asbestos in the rubbish when
our guys cleared it," Mr McLellan said.

He believed the pile had been left in the open, next to the
preschool and its playground, for at least a month.

Ms Motley was not director of the preschool when the cottage was
removed and has been trying to piece together information
regarding the pile of rubbish ever since.

"While the school and its surrounds is now safe, staff and
children may have been exposed to asbestos last year," Ms Motley
said.

The land on which the asbestos was found is owned by the
preschool, so the $8380 bill for its clean-up was sent to Ms
Motley.  But after negotiations with Armidale Dumaresq Council,
the fee was reduced to $3185.  The preschool caters for up to 39
children every day, with about 68 enrolments. Ms Motley said she
appreciated the reduction in the bill, however, "in order to make
any renovations or improvements to the school, fundraising is
required.

The money will use a large portion of the funds raised to date for
a proposed outside play area for the children."  She urged anyone
with information regarding the contractor who removed the cottage
to contact the preschool on 6772 2695.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Who Dumped Fibro Fined $1-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Pankratz, writing for The Denver Post, reported that two
companies accused of charging customers thousands of dollars for
removal of asbestos-contaminated materials from their homes and
buildings and then illegally dumping or abandoning the waste in
Arapahoe and Weld counties have pleaded guilty to felony charges
and agreed to pay $1 million in fines.

Tri State Environmental Group and Aftermath Cleanup & Remediation
Services LLC were fined $500,000 each and their owner, James
Joseph Duran, 48, was fined $2,538 and sentenced to 500 hours of
community service and six years of probation by an Arapahoe
District Court judge, according to the Colorado Attorney General's
office.

According to the grand jury indictment, Duran's companies dumped,
stored and abandoned waste over a three-year period that began in
January 2009 in violation of Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment regulations. The case was investigated by the
state health department and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

The indictment claims Duran's companies acted as remediation
contractors or subcontractors for asbestos removal from buildings
in Windsor, Littleton and Greeley. Instead of properly disposing
of the hazardous materials, Duran dumped the waste in incorrectly
marked bags or in several cases, abandoned the material in roll-
off trash containers that belonged to other companies.

"Unsafe disposal of asbestos endangers human health," Jeffery
Martinez, the EPA's special agent in charge of criminal
investigation in Colorado, said in a news release. "This sentence
is some measure of justice for the communities, businesses and
individuals impacted by the defendant's conduct."

Duran also is accused of failing to pay subcontractors he hired to
do abatement and and demolition projects under contracts with the
city of Littleton and with the owners of a community corrections
dormitory complex in Greeley known as The Villa.

"Unsafe disposal of asbestos endangers human health," Jeffery
Martinez, the EPA's special agent in charge of criminal
investigation in Colorado, said in a news release. "This sentence
is some measure of justice for the communities, businesses and
individuals impacted by the defendant's conduct."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Prompts University Site Shutdown
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Blackman, writing for Building.co.uk, reported that
construction work on a project at Warwick University, in England,
has been halted after asbestos was found on the site.

Several builders were evacuated during their shift last week and
the site remains closed, according to a report in the Coventry
Evening Telegraph.  The asbestos fibres were released into the air
during work on the renovation of halls of residence on the
university's Westwood Campus. One worker told the Telegraph that
their work clothes had had to be incinerated as a precaution.  The
site, operated by Deeley Construction, has been closed while the
matter is referred to the Health and Safety Executive.

A spokesman for Coventry-based Deeley said: "We were aware there
was asbestos in some parts of the buildings.

"We had hired a removal firm to move furniture. It subsequently
transpired that some of that furniture was fixed to walls which
contained asbestos and once that was reported to us, work was
stopped on that building and the site closed.

"Testing is now being carried out and the facts will be reported
to the Health and Safety Executive well within the permitted time
frame.

"We have fully communicated the situation with the university and
we are working together to remedy the situation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Chief Minister Calls for New Warning System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Willis and Jessica Nairn, writing for ABC News, reported
that the ACT's Chief Minister has called for a new system to alert
tradespeople and potential renters to homes containing Mr Fluffy
asbestos.  Katy Gallagher also wants the system to allow
homeowners to keep their locations secret from the general public.

More than 1,000 Canberra homes still contain residual asbestos
fibres despite a Commonwealth clean-up program in the 1980s.  Ms
Gallagher has agreed with the views of affected homeowners, that
their right to privacy outweighs the benefits of publicly
identifying the sites.

"One of the proposals put to me has been to put a tag in the meter
box," she said.

"So that if renters or tradespeople are visiting that house, they
can very quickly see by simply lifting the meter box whether it is
known as a Mr Fluffy house."

Ms Gallagher has warned there must be full disclosure when a home
changes hands, when a property is rented out or when a
tradesperson is hired to do work.  The fines for not disclosing
the property is a Mr Fluffy home are as high as $3 million for a
business and $600,000 for an individual officer.

Meanwhile, real estate industry representatives have gathered at a
forum in Canberra to discuss Mr Fluffy homes.  The ACT Real Estate
Institute called the forum to brief the industry about their
responsibilities when confronted with a Mr Fluffy home.

More than 200 people attended the forum.

Institute chief executive Ron Bell warned his profession was being
singled out as irresponsible.

"I think that's unfair. I think most agents are doing the right
thing, particularly if they know something is there," he said.

"I can't recall anything that has been as sensitive as this and
has brought everybody together."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Responds to Fraud Claims by Panel
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the debtors in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy
proceeding have filed a heavily redacted opposition to reopening
the sealed record of 2013's estimation hearing that led to only
$125 million being placed in a trust for asbestos claimants.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants has
asked a bankruptcy judge to reopen the record, claiming the
debtors misled and committed a fraud upon the court.

The debtors claim that the arguments presented by the committee in
its motion provide no sound reason for reopening the estimation
record as most arguments have already been rejected by the court.

"The committee has suffered no prejudice, and its motion provides
no basis to question the estimation record or the court's
decision," the debtors wrote. "The motion should therefore be
denied in total."

The debtors -- which include Garlock, Garrison Litigation
Management Group and The Anchor Packing Company -- filed their
opposition on July 3 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

The action arises out of Judge George Hodges' Jan. 10 bankruptcy
ruling in favor of Garlock, ordering the gasket manufacturer to
put $125 million in an asbestos trust -- roughly $1 billion less
than what plaintiffs' representatives felt was proper. In his
decision, Hodges noted how attorneys had been withholding evidence
while pursuing claims against Garlock.

Just six days after an amended reorganization plan was filed, the
committee filed its motion to reopen the record, claiming the
debtors committed a "fraud upon the court."

Now the debtors are opposing the allegation of fraud, saying the
substance in the committee's motion is "remarkably thin."

"The motion does not even mention, must less attack, the
fundamental bases of the court's estimation opinion," the debtors
claim.

"There the court found, on the basis of the scientific and social
science evidence presented at the estimation trial, that 'it is
clear that Garlock's products resulted in a relatively low
exposure to asbestos to a limited population and that its legal
responsibility for causing mesothelioma is relatively de
minimus.'"

The debtors added that Garlock's products only exposed people to
low doses of relatively less potent chrysotile asbestos, which
typically occurred when people were simultaneously being exposed
to higher doses of amphibole asbestos.

As a result, the court concluded that "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 debtors also argue that the court found its expert to be
reliable when taking these elements into account in the economic
model that estimated Garlock's liability.

However, they contend that the committee's motion challenges none
of these conclusions from the court. Rather, the motion challenges
the court's decision to reject reliance on Garlock's settlements
when calculating liability for mesothelioma claims, they say.

"It was, of course, the committee's burden at trial to prove that
those settlements were a reliable proxy, and the court found the
committee had not met that burden," they state.

These are the same settlements that Hodges said do "not accurately
reflect fair settlements because exposure evidence was withheld.
And Garlock's settlement data represents insignificant part cost
avoidance rather than its liability."

The committee failed to provide any new evidence discrediting the
ruling and showing that the settlements do actually measure
Garlock's liability, the debtors say.

The debtors argue that the motion only concerns the court's
finding that the last 10 years of Garlock's participation in the
tort system was "'infected by the manipulation of exposure
evidence by plaintiffs and other lawyers.'"

"Even here, the motion addresses only a small part of the
'substantial evidence' upon which the court based that finding,"
they wrote.

Additionally, the motion only provides lengthy discussions of two
of the 15 cases where debtors were granted access to full
discovery, which were each redacted, they wrote.

In fact, the committee "does not even deny that plaintiff firms
failed to disclose exposure evidence in its featured cases," the
debtors wrote.

The committee says Garlock failed to produce depositions and
documents that would demonstrate that Garlock knew one plaintiff
whose name is redacted was exposed to Unibestos on the U.S.S. John
Marshall but didn't disclose it.

More than 10,000 claims were resolved against Garlock, and the
company presented evidence from more than 200 during the
estimation trial.

"On the basis of this presentation, Garlock persuaded the court to
depart from precedent and draw the drastic conclusion that
Garlock's real claims resolution experience was 'useless' for
estimation," the committee says.

"It turns out, however, that Garlock failed to produce evidence
that would not fit this revisionist account of its history in the
tort system."

Garlock should be compelled to disclose evidence the committee
sought during discovery, the committee argues. It adds that it has
obtained key information from other sources on the first few cases
Garlock featured as examples of fraud.

"Ironically, the new information reveals Garlock itself
manipulating the evidence in the estimation proceeding in much the
way that it claims plaintiffs' lawyers did in the tort system,"
the committee says.

The committee is represented by Trevor W. Swett and three other
attorneys at Caplin & Drysdale, as well as Travis W. Moon of Moon
Wright & Houston in Charlotte.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Firm Removes Fibro in Wash. School
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reported in July that crews from IB-1, an asbestos
abatement firm, are currently removing asbestos from the classroom
wing of Lake Roosevelt High School, in Washington, and district
officials stated it would take about two weeks to complete the
work.  Then it will be time for the wrecking ball.

Work was temporarily delayed recently when it was discovered that
there was more asbestos in the building than previously thought.
Thirteen of the classrooms had asbestos tile under carpeting.

Superintendent Dr. Dennis Carlson stated that the abatement firm
plans to remove asbestos from the additional rooms on a time-and-
material basis. He said the estimate of cost for the added work
will be around $53,000.  Once the asbestos material is removed,
then the building is scheduled for demolition making way for the
grounds area to be filled to final grade.

The administration area and gym complex both escape the wrecking
ball and figure into the final planned use of spaces.  Recently
the school board voted to use contingency funds to redo the roof
and siding of the administration space and gym so it will match
the new K-12 structure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tower Redevelopment Halted Over Fibro Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tristatehomepage.com reported that asbestos concerns are holding
up renovations at Gabe's Tower in Owensboro, in Kentucky. In fact,
very little progress is being made in converting it to a 120 room
hotel.

As the seasons changed, many thought Gabe's Tower would too.

"I felt that there would've been a whole lot more done by now,"
says Tammy LaForce, who runs the 2nd Time Around Consignment shop.
She saw the progress when it started last year.

"I could hear them in there working, and they've had big dumpsters
where they were piling the dumpsters and stuff," LaForce recalls.
But lately, nothing's changed.

"Everything's gone other than the fence," she adds.

The reason: concerns over asbestos.  City officials say developers
and the building's owners are doing a second round of
environmental tests after tests done earlier this year showed no
signs of asbestos.

"That was based off a complaint, somebody saw dust coming out of
the Gabe's Tower as they were cleaning it out for the rehab,
calling the EPA, fearing it was asbestos," says Owensboro City
Manager Bill Parrish. He says the new tests could be done in the
next sixty days, and could impact how the project moves forward.

"If you disturb asbestos, you have to take it out, and there's a
significant cost to it. If you contain the asbestos so it doesn't
leak out, so it doesn't get into the air, then there's a lower
cost to it, but it shapes what your redevelopment looks like," he
adds.

City officials say the project's not just important for
revitalizing Gabe's Tower, but they consider it an important part
for revitalizing the Triplett Twist area of Owensboro. Developers
say they had no intention of abandoning the project earlier this
year.  LaForce says she hopes there's more change soon.

"Just be able to see some progress, you know, instead of the
boarded up windows and grass growing up in the parking lot," she
says. "Just actually see some progress going on."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mechanic Can Sue Ford Motor for Further Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reported that the
Texas Supreme Court allowed a former Bay Area service station
owner to seek additional damages from Ford Motor Co. for exposing
him to brake-lining asbestos that has afflicted him with terminal
cancer.

A jury awarded Patrick Scott $1.5 million in damages and legal
costs against Ford in November 2012. The order allows him to ask
another jury for punitive damages. Scott and his wife, Sharon,
have settled claims against other automakers for undisclosed
amounts.

Scott worked in a Navy shipyard, where he was also exposed to
asbestos, before opening his first service station in Sausalito in
1965. He leased an Atlantic Richfield station in San Francisco in
1970, then moved his business to a Beacon station in St. Helena in
1977.  He stopped working in 2011 after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, an incurable form of lung cancer that is caused by
asbestos but typically does not show up until decades after
exposure.

Asbestos has long been used in the linings of motor vehicle brakes
and clutches and is still used in brake pads, though it is banned
in some other products. Scientists had established its connection
to cancer by the mid-1950s, but the federal government did not
regulate workplace asbestos exposure until 1971.

According to court records, Ford mentioned asbestos in one of its
publications in 1975 but did not put warnings on brake cartons
until at least 1980. A Ford internal investigation cited by
Scott's lawyers found mesothelioma among company employees in the
late 1970s and early 1980s at nearly three times the rate of the
general population.

The jury found Ford 22 percent responsible for Scott's suffering,
assigned 19 percent of the responsibility to Scott himself,
apparently for continuing to work after he learned of the danger,
and attributed the rest of the blame to the Navy and other
entities.

Ford appealed the verdict, arguing that information about the
potential dangers of asbestos in brake linings was widely known to
auto mechanics from the time Scott started working. But the
state's First District Court of Appeal said in April that the jury
heard evidence that Ford had known of the risks before Scott did
and failed to warn him.

Ford also argued that the jury should not be allowed to award
punitive damages because they are barred by law in Michigan, where
the company is based. That argument was accepted by a judge in
Alameda County, where the case was tried, but rejected by the
appeals court, which said Ford was not entitled to a "nationwide
shield" against penalties that California juries can assess for
egregious conduct. That ruling entitles Scott to a partial retrial
and is also a precedent for future cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buddz's Demolition Delayed by Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
KIWARadio.com reported that the burned out shell of the building
that housed Buddz's Sports Bar & Grill and the Rec Bowl in
Sheldon, Iowa, is still set for demolition, but not quite as soon
as was originally expected.

Sheldon Public Works Director Todd Uhl told KIWA that, while crews
have been working to remove numerous items from the structure's
interior, the actual demolition has been put on hold due to
asbestos removal issues.  Uhl says that a permit from the State of
Iowa is required for asbestos removal.  The company who will be
performing the removal from the Buddz's building obtained a permit
for the job last year when the building demolition was first
contemplated, says Uhl, but that one-year permit had expired by
the time the City received permission from the courts to remove
the structure, forcing them to reapply for a new permit.

Uhl says the contractor for the project has indicated to him that
they hope to be in the building removing asbestos yet this week,
and that the actual demolition of the building will commence once
that is completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capitol House Side Reopens After Fibro Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed O'Keefe, writing for The Washington Post, reported that the
House side of the U.S. Capitol reopened after a brief shutdown
because of an asbestos-related incident.

Authorities were keeping one section of the building sealed off
for further inspection, but lawmakers and aides returned to work,
tours resumed, and the House was planning to reconvene around noon
as scheduled.

Earlier, all lawmakers and aides who work on the House side of the
Capitol were instructed to stay away "until further notice" by the
Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the office that is responsible for
management and maintenance of the building.

Officials initially described the incident only as an "industrial
spill."

The AOC said in a statement that during ongoing asbestos-removal
work, "there was a potential release affecting the House side of
the Capitol." Samples are being collected to determine whether
there was potential widespread exposure.

In addition to overseeing multimillion-dollar renovations to the
Capitol Dome, the AOC is having asbestos removed from other parts
of the building.  Initial news reports said the incident occurred
when workers were removing asbestos from the fourth floor of the
Capitol and something fell.

The House was scheduled to hold votes to approve spending bills to
fund the Energy and Treasury departments.  The brief closure on
the House side did not affect the Senate, which occupies the north
side of the Capitol and was expected to convene as scheduled. U.S.
Capitol Police officers are able to cordon off parts of the
building and keep out lawmakers, aides, reporters and visitors if
necessary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in NZ City Stockroom
------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Keber and Amy McGillivray, writing for New Zealand Herald,
reported that asbestos has been found in a storage room during
renovation work being carried out at a Tauranga, New Zealand,
branch of The Warehouse.

A spokeswoman for the chain confirmed the substance had been found
in a storage area, when questioned by the Bay of Plenty Times.

Tests results revealed the vinyl floor in the stockroom of the
Cameron Rd store contained some asbestos, The Warehouse public
relations manager Joanne Fullam said.  The floor of the stockroom,
a separate building to the store itself, was tested before work to
remove it started.

"Consequently we took immediate steps to isolate, close and seal
the stockroom, allowing strictly limited access to management team
members only," she said.

"We are absolutely confident that there is no risk to customers
visiting the store because the stockroom is located in a separate
building. Independent experts from the testing laboratory in
Auckland and a Tauranga Public Health Protection officer confirmed
the chance of team members being exposed to asbestos particles in
the air as being very, very low."

The company was waiting on the results of additional testing that
was carried out as a precaution, she said.

"Our top priority is the safety and wellbeing of our team and our
customers, which is why we took immediate steps to communicate the
situation with team members and answer any questions and
concerns."

Ms Fullam said WorkSafe New Zealand, formerly the Department of
Labour, had been notified of the situation.

An alternative off-site storeroom had been found so that the
existing one could be dismantled using an asbestos removal
specialist to ensure best practice, she said.

The renovations were part of the multi-million dollar project to
modernise, refit and update stores across the country.

A Worksafe New Zealand spokesman said the organization had not yet
been formally notified, but was aware the company was in the
process of doing so.

All work involving asbestos that could be easily crumbled had to
be carried out by a person holding a certificate of competence
issued by Worksafe New Zealand.

If asbestos was present and undamaged it could be left in place
and no further action would be required.

Medical Officer of Health at Toi Te Ora Phil Shoemack said he was
aware of the situation at The Warehouse on Cameron Rd but, as it
was a workplace, it was a matter for WorkSafe New Zealand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Contamination Talks Secure Cooperation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Morozow, writing for ABC News, reported that The ACT
Government has received assurances the Commonwealth is willing to
cooperate in dealing with the threat of asbestos contamination in
Canberra homes.

About 1,000 Canberra properties had loose amosite asbestos
installed by insulation company Mr Fluffy in the late 1960s and
1970s.

A Federal Government program aimed to remove the asbestos between
1988 and 1993 but some cleared homes have since been found to
contain potentially deadly remnant fibres.

ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has held talks with the
responsible federal minister, Senator Eric Abetz, as her
Government grapples with responding to the crisis, which has
forced some residents out of their homes.

Ms Gallagher has called on the Commonwealth to honour a 1991
memorandum of understanding which tied the Federal Government to
funding if Mr Fluffy contamination caused further problems.  She
said she and Senator Abetz spoke for more than half an hour about
the situation and the meeting was very positive.

"I think there was a commitment there to work together at this
point," she said.

"There was no 'we're coming with lots of money, we're going to
help you solve it,' I think it's probably a bit early for that.

"But there was certainly genuine engagement and a commitment to
work together."

Ms Gallagher said the Federal Government seemed to be taking the
issue seriously.

"The fact that I could get a meeting within a day of making a
formal request to that minister shows a level of willingness on
the Commonwealth's part to listen and to understand the problem,"
she said.

"All I can say it was a positive first step, obviously lots more
to do and we're doing a lot."

The ACT Government has previously announced relief funding for
affected homeowners. It will pay each of the affected 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.

The Government earlier said there were about 10 families who could
not return to their homes.  A spokesman for Senator Abetz said the
Minister had a productive meeting with Ms Gallagher and
understands the distress the issue is causing Canberra residents.

"The Federal Government is assisting the ACT Government to
carefully work through this issue," he said.

"It is important that all involved work cooperatively to properly
determine the extent of the problem so that we can ensure the best
possible response."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Fibro Complicates Kilby Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------
Pat Kimbrough, writing for HPE.com, reported that it may be awhile
longer before the remains of the Kilby Hotel, in North Carolina,
are hauled away.  State officials have concerns the rubble of the
former Washington Street landmark, which collapsed on June 11,
contains asbestos, according to interim City Manager Randy
McCaslin.

The state has to approve an asbestos remediation plan for the site
before officials will issue a permit to clean up the remains.
"The state came in and looked at the rubble, and they feel very
comfortable that there was asbestos in it," McCaslin said.

The mineral fiber has been used in some types of construction
materials, especially in older structures like the Kilby, which
dates to 1910. Exposure to asbestos fibers can cause cancer and
other health problems, according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

The owners are working with the state on a remediation plan,
McCaslin said. The city already has paid for a contractor to
demolish the portion of the structure that didn't collapse.

The owners will be billed for this and any additional cleanup
expenses the city incurs once the potential asbestos issue is
resolved.

"If the city does it, we will put a lien on the property if the
family is unable to pay that amount," McCaslin said.

The Kilby had historic significance because of its prominence in
High Point's black business and cultural community during the era
of segregation.

Prior to its collapse, the building had not been in use for years
and had fallen into severe disrepair.

Various ideas about saving the site had been discussed with the
city, but nothing concrete had been put forth prior to the
collapse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Fibro Risk at Former Brisbane Law Courts Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Stephens, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that
Queensland, Australia's Department of Justice says the abandoned
Brisbane law courts demolition site poses no threat to public
health, after fears were raised it was riddled with asbestos.

No airborne fibres were detected in site monitoring undertaken by
Workplace Health and Safety officers, according to a departmental
spokesperson, and samples of broken cement sheeting taken from the
site last week have also tested negative for the cancer-causing
fibres.

"WHSQ is satisfied all necessary steps have been undertaken to
maintain public safety," the spokesperson said.

However, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union said
it commissioned its own independent testing of eight samples taken
from the site last week, five of which it says have tested
positive for chrysotile asbestos.

The union maintains the partially demolished site is a public
health disaster in the making, with broken cement sheeting causing
wind gusts to blow the deadly fibres across the city.

Health fears were raised publicly when it was revealed the
prominent CBD site, in the heart of Brisbane's business district,
was abandoned mid-demolition when the contractor, the Wacol-based
P&K Demolitions went broke, owing $3.7 million to creditors.

The director of River City Asbestos Removals, the company
contracted by P&K Demolitions to safely remove the cement
sheeting, said he had not been able to declare some areas of the
site safe, prompting fears thousands of city workers could
unwittingly be inhaling the deadly airborne fibres.

Despite the departmental test results, CFMEU Queensland and
Northern Territory branch president David Hanna said workplace
health and safety officers had neglected their duties in properly
supervising the demolition of the 1970s buildings, which they knew
contained large amounts of asbestos.

"Everyone has known there has been asbestos there all along and
that's fine, if it's managed well but it just hasn't been," he
said.

"The asbestos has to be taken off in full sheets but this has been
broken and parts have been pushed off the roof.

"There has been no reticulation system put in place, so there was
no way to contain any of the dust that rose and spread."

Mr Hanna said CFMEU members on site raised concerns about the
asbestos removal procedures in early June, six months after the
demolition process began.  He said all asbestos needed to be
removed in a "soft strip" before demolition work commenced, which
he alleged had not been the case.  Mr Hanna said the workplace
health and safety officers should move quickly to install a
reticulation system to prevent dust blowing off the site, despite
its test results returning a negative finding for the fibres.

"It's no good the department saying it's not their responsibility,
the department is there to protect the public to ensure
legislation is adhered to," he said.

"We think the department should ensure the asbestos is contained
and removed in a proper manner and that means a sprinkler system
needs to be set up as a precaution straight away."

The Workplace Health and Safety spokesperson said sealed bags of
asbestos remained on site at 300 George Street but that they that
posed no public health risk.

"The sealed bags of asbestos still remain on-site, and demolition
cannot resume until the bags are collected. It is the
responsibility of the site owner to manage the safe removal of
these bags," the spokesperson said.

The developer, the Taiwanese-based Shayher Group, has not been
available for comment.

The procurement process to find a new demolitionist is underway.
The CFMEU's independent testing was undertaken by environmental
consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff. It did not undertake independent
air testing at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovators Face Criminal Charges Over Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knaus, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a
Canberra couple have been convicted for failing to completely
remove asbestos during a major renovation of their family home in
Griffith.

Two types of asbestos were riddled through rubble that was left
out in the open when the couple demolished an extension on a
heritage-listed home in Griffith in April last year.

Albert Bonansea, a highly experienced builder and sole director of
a construction company Interform Constructive Solutions, took
charge of the renovation, and his wife, Ivana Bonansea, applied
for her own owner-builder licence to help redevelop the block.
They brought in subcontractors and pointed out asbestos in the
ceiling of a bedroom and a front entry that needed to be removed
before the demolition.

The couple then pushed ahead with the demolition without getting a
general asbestos assessment, telling the building certifier that
all of the substance had been removed.

A WorkSafe ACT inspector later discovered broken pieces of fibro
sheeting in the rubble, which he suspected to be asbestos.

A prohibition order was put on the site to stop further work, as
was an improvement notice and a notice requiring the production of
documents relating to the work.

More than 20 individual pieces of bonded asbestos and three
instances of friable asbestos were found throughout the rubble.

The couple both pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to comply
with a safety duty, and were sentenced in the ACT Magistrates
Court by Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker.

Both were convicted and fined $1650.

Ms Walker said she would have thought the couple would have been
more careful, particularly given their children were to live in
the home, and given Mr Bonansea's experience and knowledge.

"That is a reckless disregard which I find difficult to fathom,"
she said.

She described both as seemingly very respectable citizens, noting
Mr Bonansea was very competent and highly regarded in his work.

Defence barrister Jack Pappas told the court the couple had been
caught in the crossfire of various government agencies regulating
the work site. He said they were trying to please everybody.

"This was a building site that was policed within an inch of its
life," Mr Pappas said.

Mr Pappas called on the court to consider a non-conviction order,
noting the couple had already been punished to some degree through
proceedings in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.  That
was rejected by Ms Walker, who said the case did not warrant non-
conviction orders.  The prosecution said a strong element of
general deterrence was needed in sentencing, to show the community
the importance of the safe handling of such material.

"We're not saying anyone was harmed, but this was asbestos, a
dangerous substance, that was lying out in the open," the
prosecutor said.

The prosecution acknowledged the wife had largely relied on her
husband for the renovation work, and that her culpability was
lower.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms $12MM Verdict in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that 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 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.

On the other hand, Crane 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: Fibro Removal Plan for San Rafael School Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Martinez, writing for Cibola Beacon, reported that the
Grants/Cibola County School Board, in New Mexico, approved an
asbestos removal RFP (Request For Proposal) for San Rafael
Elementary School. The approval added another $72,000 to the
$502,000 that was previously approved in an RFP to replace the
roof.

According to the school's website the elementary school was
originally built in 1936 during the federal Works Progress
Administration. The facility has undergone $502,000 worth of
repairs and improvements.

The discovery of asbestos prompted the special meeting to approve
the new RFP. What were originally three bids dwindled to one when
two of the companies withdrew their bids. Keers Remediation
specializes in removal of toxic material. According to Maintenance
Coordinator Mark Clark the District has 50 days to complete the
project before classes begin.

He informed the board, "We're looking at 19 to 20 days barring any
bad weather days to get this part done. Theoretically, the
asbestos company (Keers Remediation) can come in and rip the roof
off in one day but the roofing company (J3) has to be able to
replace it. At this point, they are working on areas that were
identified as non-asbestos so that we're not putting the roofer
behind. If we wait any longer and the roofer catches up then
there's gonna be downtime; and we're going to be paying damages to
the roofer because he's going to have to pull his crew off; and we
can't just have them sitting there."

The plan is to remove the asbestos while replacing the roof in
tandem, so as not to have the building unprotected during the
rainy weather. Clark noted, "Doing it this way we will still be
within the original contract for the roofing. It's not going to
extend it."

After approval from the board the permit will have to go through a
10-day waiting period but Keers Remediation will be prepared
to begin. Jeremy Jerge, state Public Schools Financing Authority
assistant regional manager, was asked how this additional funding
affects the budget. Jerge replied that G/CCS District Finance
Director Ann Marie Gallegos had previously added a contingency. He
also said, "What's going to happen is since there was an initial
contingency in the project and because it takes a while to get
contracts approved through my office, you guys will pay for it up
front; and then we're going to reimburse you guys as much as we
can for our portion when the project is complete. Whatever is left
in that contingency you guys will get reimbursed back. Ann (Marie
Gallegos) had allocated around $500,000 so when all is said and
done everything would stay around the same."

Clark and Jerge explained how the initial inspections missed the
asbestos, "We found out there was areas of roofing that had four
decking on it. At first they thought it was just in the flashing,
then they did some probing as work began. These are just things
you find out when you work on older buildings, a shot in the
dark."

The initial inspection only studied the first layer of roofing
because they did not know about the other layers, according to
Clark.

At a school board meeting, on April 22, Jerge and Clark estimated
that the contractor J3's completion date for the roof repairs
would be Dec. 31, 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Experts to Leave Site of Primary School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evening Times reported that Hunter Demolition were working to
demolish Broomloan Road school, in Govan, after a fire ripped
through it in May.  The firm is removing three types of the
substance, including two of the most dangerous forms -- amosite
and crocidolite.

Councillor Stephen Dornan called for action after hundreds of
residents living near the derelict site were not told about the
work.  The lethal fibres can cause lung cancer, respiratory
problems and lead to inflammatory diseases.

Mr Dornan, who looks after the Govan ward, said the council should
have warned locals to "at least close their windows".  He said:
"The constituents should be fully informed, and if that helps to
alleviate their concerns, why not do that?"

A spokeswoman for Glasgow City Council, said: "All works are being
carried out within protective fencing and by contractors licensed
by the Health and Safety Executive.

"The air quality in the area immediate to the site is being
monitored for asbestos fibres. Results are all within acceptable
thresholds."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. School Receives $10M for Fibro Site Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that researchers with the University of Pennsylvania received a
$10 million grant to study asbestos and how the toxic fiber leads
to asbestos-related disease in response to America's 10 Superfund
sites.

The grant, which came from the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), is expected to help researchers from the
school's Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET)
at the Perelman School of Medicine to study asbestos, mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related diseases over the next four years.

The grant established the Penn Superfund Research and Training
Program Center as a result of concerns surrounding the BiRit
Asbestos Superfund site in Ambler, Pa.

Dr. Ian Blair, professor of Pharmacology, was appointed as
director of the Center, and CEET director Dr. Trevor Penning,
professor of Pharmacology, was appointed deputy director of the
Center.

Additional investigators on the grant include researchers from the
Abramson Cancer Center, the Penn School of Arts and Sciences and
Fox Chase Cancer Center.

According to a press release, CEET's Community Outreach and
Engagement Core has participated in bi-directional communication
with the Ambler community for the last five years, but this award
is the first NIEHS Superfund grant driven by problems identified
in a community-academic partnership.

The Ambler community housed a now-closed asbestos factory since
the late 1880s, catapulting several studies focusing on the
medical and environmental consequences of the factory.  Because
residents in the area face an increased risk of asbestos exposure
and potential asbestos-related diseases, experts have tried to
find answers to the toxic fiber and its impact on society.

With the help of the CEET's Community Outreach and Engagement
Core, the Pennsylvania Department of Health found that there has
been an increased rate of mesothelioma cases in the area when
compared to nearby zip codes. They further found that women have a
greater risk than men.

The grant also establishes an interdisciplinary training program
for students. It combines environmental sciences with
environmental health sciences so doctoral students and
postdoctoral fellows may receive hands-on education in these
complementary disciplines.

Participation in Superfund webinars sponsored by NIEHS and
internships in technology transfer at CTT and the EPA will be
included as part of the training.  The environmental science
projects focusing on the remediation of asbestos particles will be
conducted by Drs. Jane Willenbring and Brenda Casper from the
School of Arts and Sciences. The two will use mycrorrhiza fungi to
break down asbestos fibers to a new non-toxic mineral form.

The studies regarding mobility and fate of asbestos particles in
natural bodies of water, such as streams and rivers, will be
conducted by Dr. Doug Jerolmack and Willenbring from the School of
Arts and Sciences. They will monitor the movement of asbestos
fibers through soil and water using translucent soil substitutes
and a nanoaquarium in order to detect asbestos in the environment.

Fran Barg and Ted Emmett from Penn Medicine will conduct a
sociological study to identify how asbestos exposure occurs and
whether such findings could explain the cluster of asbestos-
induced mesothelioma cases in Ambler, specifically in women.

Additionally, the biomedical branch of the grant will explore the
genetics of mesothelioma susceptibility and plans to develop a
blood test for early detection using a mouse model of
mesothelioma.

Drs. Becky Simmons from Penn Medicine and Joseph Testa from Fox
Chase will work with a tumor-suppressor knockout mouse to
determine if susceptibility to mesothelioma is genetic.  The mouse
model will also be used to test whether the remediated asbestos is
less toxic.

Drs. Melpo Christofidou-Solomidou and Steve Albelda from Penn
Medicine will study how to prevent mesothelioma in mice exposed to
asbestos using an antioxidant in flaxseed. They will also use the
flaxseed to treat the mice if they show early symptoms of
mesothelioma.

Blair and Anil Vachani will develop a blood test to determine if
subjects have been exposed to asbestos and whether they are at
risk for developing mesothelioma by using blood samples from
workers who were heavily exposed to asbestos.

While the projects focus primarily on Ambler, the center believes
the findings could easily translate to the 15 additional Superfund
asbestos sites in the country.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Canaan OKs Settlement in NCHS Fibro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Marsh, writing for NC Advertiser, reported that the New
Canaan Board of Selectmen, in Connecticut, approved accepting a
settlement offer from Kaestle Boos Associates Inc., the third
contractor named in the town's 2005 lawsuit seeking damages
relating to cost overruns in the New Canaan High School
renovation. The approval came after an executive session.

Judy Neville, who was first selectman at the time, brought the
lawsuit, which relates to additional costs in the millions that
were added during the project for unexpected asbestos removal, a
problem that first reared its head at the high school decades ago.

"The town nets one million dollars as a result of this action,"
stated First Selectman Rob Mallozzi III, who helped negotiate the
final settlement along with attorney David Golub, who the first
selectman's office described as "instrumental in reaching all of
these settlements."

"This is a good thing that happened today," Mallozzi told the
Advertiser the day of the Board of Selectmen's approval. "We're
happy with this."

The total net recoveries for the town from the lawsuit are $2.9
million, according to Mallozzi. "In a time of tough budgeting and
increased pressure on expenses, this award will help defray
capital costs," he stated.

Mallozzi's administration, the first selectman added, will be
working now to close out the years-old high school project and
will work with the state to recover "our portion of the cost-
sharing dollars that had been unattended to in the past."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Safe Fibro Disposal Plan Proposed in St. George
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader reported that home renovators
in St George and Sutherland Shire will be able to dispose of small
amounts of asbestos more cheaply under a trial that starts this
month.  Kogarah, Rockdale, Hurstville and Sutherland Shire
councils are taking part in the state government scheme.

Environment Minister Rob Stokes said it would assess how effective
such measures were in reducing illegal dumping of asbestos waste.

Residents will be able to dispose of up to five tonnes of wrapped
bonded asbestos.  The quantity is based on the average house built
in the 1950s containing four tonnes of asbestos.

Savings will come from the waiving of the government's asbestos
waste levy of $120.90 a tonne, together with an incentive payment
of up to $50 a tonne for residents who register for the scheme.

Normal landfill tipping gate fees still apply.

Councils may pay the rebate in different ways and also apply extra
conditions.

Residents are advised to contact their council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Present in Pioneer Village
-------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Cowan, writing for Leader-Post, reported that Sandra
Germaine is worried about her father's safety at Pioneer Village.

"That place is unsafe and falling apart," she said. "There is duct
tape everywhere you look holding things together and patching
things up including the floors and the doors."

Germaine was a care aide at Pioneer Village from 1984 to 2013.
During that time, she says the building has been in a steady state
of decline -- particularly in the past five years. She is most
concerned about asbestos and black mould in the special care home.

"The ceilings on the main floor are always leaking and water drips
everywhere," Germaine said. "Every spring they try to repair it. I
guess they do the best they can with the money they have, but
there's always leaks."

She isn't planning to relocate her dad because she has heard other
long-term care facilities are also in rough shape.

"I know the staff (at Pioneer Village) and they're good with dad
and he's happy with them," Germaine said. "But Pioneer Village
truly needs to be torn down and rebuilt."

Her assessment jibes with a report released by the Vanderwiel
Facility Assessors (VFA), which rated Pioneer Village as the
health-care facility in southern Saskatchewan requiring the most
urgent repairs.

Debbie Sinnett, executive director of Pioneer Village,
acknowledges the facility has significant infrastructure issues,
including asbestos and mould, but stressed that residents are
safe.

"We have a strong process to address those issues every time we
have to go in and do work in an area where there may be asbestos,"
Sinnett said.

Four years ago, Pioneer Village was among the facilities in the
Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region that had asbestos assessments.

"As our facility was built back partially in the 1960s and the
early 1970s, we have lots of areas where asbestos was used,"
Sinnett said.

An asbestos audit by Bersch & Associates Ltd. revealed Pioneer
Village has asbestos-containing materials in mechanical
insulation, sheet flooring and stipple ceiling texture. Asbestos
hot spots include boiler rooms, the basement laundry, the common
area and the main recreation area.

The assessment and an asbestos audit database is reviewed with
tradespeople entering the facility to prevent asbestos being
disturbed and potential exposure to asbestos.

"When the report came out, we engaged an asbestos abatement
company firm to work in those areas and we're feeling very
confident that we have addressed all of those needs," Sinnett
said. "We follow the infection control guidelines and there is
hoarding in the space so the work is done without any risk to
residents or staff."

Small labels on doorways indicate the presence of asbestos and a
masterplan indicates what type of asbestos is in the affected
areas, the potential for disturbance and recommended actions.

Subsequent annual assessments indicate asbestos in the facility is
stable and there are no issues, Sinnett said.

Mould is a challenge at Pioneer Village because of the leaky roof
and moisture damage around windows. When there are signs of
significant moisture damage, a mould abatement company is called
in.

"We assess it, we remove the resident from the room, we follow
infection control precautions -- we do the cleaning and then we do
the repair and replacement," Sinnett said. "Sometimes it requires
replacement of a window and drywall, sometimes it's less
invasive."

Duct tape holds flooring together in numerous spots throughout the
building, which was built in three separate stages 40 to 55 years
ago.

"A fair amount of the flooring is original to the time of the
build or from the 80s . . .  If we've had a crack or a seam or an
issue where there's been a tear, then it's safer for us to put
some duct tape," Sinnett said. "That's been the recommendation of
one of our contractors."

She noted flooring doesn't rank as a top priority when there are
electrical or mechanical issues to deal with.

"If there's significant damage to a piece of flooring, then we
will replace that room by room or make a large patch area,"
Sinnett said. "That is just one of the many infrastructure issues
that we know and hope will be managed through our work on planning
for a replacement facility."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witness Appeal in Peterborough Fibro Death Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Lamy, writing for Peterborough Telegraph, reported that the
widow of a worker of a Baker Perkins factory, in Peterborough, who
died through asbestos exposure is looking for people who knew her
late husband.

Leslie Bean passed away in October 2013 aged 79 from mesothelioma,
an aggressive cancer of the lung linked to exposure to asbestos
dust.  His widow Shirley and family are investigating his past
work as a fitter and turner for Peterborough-based food equipment
manufacturer Baker Perkins.  And they are looking to be put in
touch with anyone who worked with Mr Bean at Baker Perkins or
experienced asbestos while working at the company.

Mr Bean worked at the factory from 1950-55 and 1957-65 with a gap
for national service.  His duties included operating machinery
such as lathes and milling machines as well as fitting on all
types of plants.  He was also involved in maintenance and
inspections of the fitting and machine shops as well as the
experimental works.  It is believed that a number of machines in
the factory -- including bread makers, biscuit machines and print
presses -- contained asbestos products.  There were also many
pipes in the factory which it is claimed contained asbestos and
which Mr Bean would have had to clean in his job.

The cleaning process would, it is suggested, have released
asbestos into the surroundings.  It is also believed that the roof
contained asbestos as well.

Andrew Stinchcombe, a specialist asbestos disease lawyer, says
asbestos is extremely dangerous when inhaled and can take many
decades to develop.

"Any assistance you can give to the family with information about
the working situation within the factory could be very helpful in
successfully concluding their claim," he said.

Mr Bean passed away only a month after being diagnosed with his
condition last September.

Baker Perkins used to be based at Westwood Works in Peterborough
and employed around 5,000 people.  It became APV Baker in 1987
after 67 years of trading under its name before being sold to
Invensys in 2006 and returning to its original trading name.

The company is now based at Manor Drive, Paston Parkway, It also
has a company in Michigan, USA.

Baker Perkins supply equipment which is used to make a number of
different confectionary products.  These range from biscuits,
cookies and crackers to cereals and snacks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Process to Start in Mass. Town
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Austin, writing for The Spectator, reported that the high
school building that was opened in 1936 has been called the most
significant landmark in the center of Somerset and Berkley, in
Massachusetts, but work on taking that structure down will soon be
starting as the new school will open in September.

Somerset Berkley Regional School Committee Chairman Richard Peirce
said asbestos abatement will be starting in the west wing of the
building and that part of the high school will be torn down first.
He said the hope is that demolition work will be done by the end
of August before classes start at the school. Peirce said the
asbestos abatement in that wing should take about two to three
weeks.

Peirce said asbestos abatement would then be done on other parts
of the building and those areas would be torn down as the
abatement is done.

"Demolition will continue throughout the fall," Peirce said.

Peirce said he hopes the estimates that have been done to pay for
the asbestos abatement and demolition work will turn out to be
accurate.

The building committee for the new high school budgeted $1,933,290
for asbestos abatement in the building.

"They think almost all of the floor tile has asbestos adhesive,"
Peirce said. "It has to be taken up and scraped."

The cost for the demolition of the building was estimated at
$983,350.

Peirce said if neighbors want to know about progress on the
demolition of the building, they can go to the web site www.sbrhs-
buildingcommittee.com.

Peirce said any of the materials in the building from the
demolition work will be owned by the contractor. For example, he
said if there are any scrap materials, such as copper tubing, that
can be sold for recycling, the contractor will own those. He said
the contractor has agreed to give as many bricks to the Raiders
Remember group as the group wants to sell to raise money for a
scholarship.

A chain-link fence has been put around the high school building
property.

The Somerset Community Evening School is moving to the middle
school and high school administrators will be moving to Berkley
Middle School until the new building is ready for them to move in.

There were some people who wanted to preserve the part of the
building constructed in 1936 to use as a town hall, or some other
types of offices in the future, but Regional School Committee and
Building Committee members were against that proposal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheraton Hotel Demolition on Schedule
------------------------------------------------------
Rob Earnshaw, writing for NWI Times, reported that the demolition
of the Sheraton Hotel, in Gary, Indiana, remains on schedule, city
officials said.

"October is when it will be gone," said Joseph Van Dyk, director
of the city's redevelopment department.

Asbestos from the building has been removed, save for a few
interior areas that still need to be abated.

Van Dyk said once the Massachusetts Street Bridge connecting the
Sheraton to the Hudson Campbell Building east of City Hall is
removed and the parking structure will be taken down.  That will
allow contractors room to take down the Sheraton in a demolition
method known as "Pac-Man" after the popular video game because of
the way it "literally munches away at the building floor-by-
floor," Van Dyk said.

It is yet undetermined when that bridge will be removed. Van Dyk
said the Broadway bridge connected to the Sheraton will be removed
in August.

Once demoltion is complete, the site will become a green
infrastructure and most likely a public space, Van Dyk said.

Improvements also will be made to the Hudson Campbell Building to
complement the new space.

"It will be a big contrast to what's there now," he said.

The $1.8 million demolition project was one of Mayor Karen
Freeman-Wilson's campaign promises.

"We are so excited that the Sheraton demolition project is on
schedule and moving forward," Freeman-Wilson said.

"Our federal partners at both HUD and the EPA have been
instrumental in working with our city departments and contractors
to ensure that the Sheraton project is completed. Removal of this
eyesore represents visible progress of Gary's revitalization."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Makes Fibro Claim Against Norton Co.
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Nicodemus, writing for Telegram.com, reported that can
asbestos-laden dust, brought home day after day for 35 years on
the work clothes of your loved one, cause you to get cancer? --
that is the thrust of a civil lawsuit 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 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.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ EQC Kept Mum on Fibro-Infected House
--------------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that the New Zealand Earthquake Commission kept
mum on the presence of asbestos in a family home.

Angela Dawson and her three children lived in a house infested
with asbestos for more almost two years after the quakes.

EQC identified the risks when assessing the damage in October
2011, but did not alert the family.  EQC paid Dawson a $7000
cheque as settlement for her claim with no more information.  She
disputed the amount. An independent report assessed the damage at
about $45,000.

"You rely on EQC and you think they're sending people in who know
their stuff, but they don't," Dawson said.

In May 2013, the family was still waiting for EQC to re-assess the
damage. Dawson's partner Brent Smith decided to go ahead and cover
the cracks in the ceiling in two rooms where the family had
scraped off the stipple prior to the quakes.

A builder friend helping with the work told the family the house
looked like it had asbestos on the damaged ceilings.

Smith called EQC and asked that the organisation test the property
so that the family could decide whether or not it was safe to stay
in the house while waiting for a re-assessment of their claim.

EQC said the family could do the test at their own expense. The
test came back positive and the asbestos company told the family
to move out immediately.

Documents obtained through the official information act show that
EQC noted the asbestos risks on the first assessment in 2011.
Smith said asbestos-containing material was falling off the
ceiling at the time.

Dawson said she was shocked to realise EQC had shown no concern
for her children's health.

"Had we not initiated the asbestos test, we would still be living
there waiting for EQC."

Dawson said she was under financial pressure having to pay the
mortgage on the house, and renting another place.

"Our lives have been put on hold," she said.

In May 2014, the family received a cheque of $45,000 from EQC
despite their opting into the home repair programme in April 2014.

An EQC spokesperson said it was a "complicated case" because
renovations were under way prior to the earthquake.

EQC's policy was to cash settle in such cases.

When asked why EQC did not inform a family with three children of
the asbestos risks present in their house, the spokesperson said
it was not EQC's role as an insurer.

"The EQC assessment did identify the possibility of asbestos
containing materials in stipple ceilings where there was some
minor cosmetic cracking, and some historic cracking from before
the earthquake."

EQC's role in this case was to settle the claim, a spokesperson
said, leaving it to the builder hired to carry out the repairs to
identify asbestos risks.

However, EQC's first assessment of the damage was six times under
the value of the actual cost of the repairs, and it took the
commission more than two years to re-assess the property.

For most of that time Dawson and her partner Smith had no idea
about the asbestos risks.

"EQC constantly puts the onus on the homeowner who don't
necessarily have the resources to pay for independent reports and
asbestos tests," Smith said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greenwood Looking to Demolish Blighted Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Bumb, writing for Index Journal, reported that Greenwood
City, Indiana, Manager Charlie Barrineau wants to tear down nine
buildings in the city limits, calling them a "cancer."

"As long as a building like these are in a neighborhood, nothing
moves forward," he said. "They're not an immediate health risk as
we're working to keep them secure and boarded up the windows and
doors."

However the biggest obstacle to removing some of the buildings is
the presence of asbestos. Five buildings on four different lots
were listed as having asbestos in a city-produced slide show.
Those properties are 706 Edgefield St., 707 Edgefield St., 431
James St., and two buildings on 720 Grendel Ave.

"We don't have the money to remove the asbestos and then tear down
the building," Barrineau said. "It's about $10,000 to $15,000 to
remove the asbestos and then $500 to $1,500 to remove the
buildings."

Barrineau said burning was not an option for the buildings with
asbestos.

"It's not easy to do it that way," he said. "We're trying to use
the most cost-effective and environmentally safe method to do
this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Homes May Still Contain Loose-Fill Fibres
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that ten
Mr Fluffy homes were destroyed in the 2003 bushfires, the head of
the Australian Capital Territory government's asbestos taskforce
said, as he sent new registered-post letters to more than 1000
homes warning they might still contain loose-fill asbestos fibres.

Also, Real Estate Institute ACT president Ron Bell said he knew of
six Mr Fluffy homes just sold or being negotiated with buyers, as
a Tuggeranong real estate agent began touting for business from
the homeowners.

Taskforce head Andrew Kefford is trying to work out how many of
the 1049 homes involved in the asbestos clean-up are still
standing. The figure includes homes since demolished, four homes
missed in the original clean-up and cleaned in 1996, 2007 and
2009, and 10 homes destroyed in the fires.

Asked about the potential for contamination across other parts of
the city from the fires, Mr Kefford said it was a concern but
burned homes had also contained bonded asbestos and the smoke had
contained other contaminants. "With a fire of that magnitude
there's all sorts of things in the smoke," he said.

Nine hundred people had registered with the taskforce, including
more than 750 homeowners. They would be asked to sign for a
registered-post letter, as would home owners who were yet to
register, as the Government creates a definitive list.

Mr Bell said three homes had sold in the past six weeks for only
about 10 per cent below market value. One had gone to a Melbourne
investor, who had told the agent he didn't care about the
potential presence of loose asbestos fibres in the home, and would
rent out the property.

The Canberra Times has reported two other recent sales, one of a
Mr Fluffy home in Deakin for about land value only, and another
for $60,000 less than market value.

Tuggeranong real estate agent John Tye advertised for Mr Fluffy
homeowners who wanted to sell to contact him. He said he saw an
opportunity to become a specialist in the sale of the stigmatised
homes and to help owners who had no idea where to turn. Mr Tye
said he wouldn't pay more than land value for the houses, but
owners might still benefit if they demolished and rebuilt before
selling.

"In the middle of difficulty lays opportunity. My coffee cup with
that written on it is nearly worn out but I read it every day," he
said.

Mr Tye has watched a friend die of mesothelioma, with the asbestos
exposure unknown, and said no amount of money or signing of
waivers could compensate.  But he said "someone needs to know what
to do on the sales side of things".

"It's not good burying your head in your hands.  What we see as an
opportunity is that we can be the conduit for people. Rather than
chase through bureaucracies, we work out what they've got to do.
I'm on a mission to find out what the hell we can do."

Mr Tye, who works for Ray White and has never yet sold a Mr Fluffy
house that he knew about, said he had received a call from a Mr
Fluffy homeowner responding to his advertisement. She had bought
the house two years ago without knowing its history.

But institute head Mr Bell urged caution, saying anyone thinking
of selling should consider waiting, with the federal and ACT
governments still considering whether houses should be demolished.

"There's quite a few agents with them to sell," Mr Bell said.
"Quite a few landlords, as I understand it, have decided to sell
their investment properties and they've proceeded straight away,
where my advice would be to talk to the taskforce first."

He pointed out that when a Downer house missed in the clean-up had
been demolished last year, the top 300 millimetres of soil had had
to be removed because of contamination.

"It's easy to say knock it down and build something else, but we
need to know the contaminants that are into the ground as well,"
he said. "It's not just a knock down, rebuild. It could be a very
expensive knock down and I think people have got to understand
that."

Mr Kefford said provided there was "disclosure on all sides of the
transactions there is no reason why these houses can't be bought
and sold". Buyers should also look for the certificate of
clearance and a report specifically mentioning "Mr Fluffy" in
house-sale documents, he said.

The Government has released new guidelines for agents, but while
they say agents should disclose the presence of asbestos to buyers
and tenants, they don't specifically require agents to use the
words "loose-fill asbestos" or "Mr Fluffy". "The degree of
disclosure by a vendor's agent to a potential buyer is a matter
for judgment in the individual case," the guidelines say.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy May Be in NSW South Coast Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Brown, writing for ABC News, reported that over 30 years of
inaction by the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments may
have resulted in older houses along the south coast harbouring a
rare loose fill asbestos insulation in their ceilings. It's known
that the material, supplied by a now defunct Canberra based
business, Mr Fluffy, had been put into south east NSW homes but
the mystery is how many, and how many are still out there. The
material is regarded as the most dangerous form of asbestos
insulation as it is loose fibre, not bound together with other
material.

The ACT has been trying to rid Canberra of the material since the
1980s and formed an Asbestos Response Taskforce to continue the
expensive program.

However, there may be homes in south east NSW with the same
material which had been installed by an even more dangerous method
than had been done in Canberra.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the Mr Fluffy business fitted
loose-fill asbestos insulation in Canberra and Queanbeyan homes by
blowing it into roof spaces.  The business stopped trading in 1978
around the time that governments were responding to growing
evidence of the health dangers of asbestos.

The Commonwealth government was at that time responsible for the
administration of the ACT, and began a costly program to survey
65,000 houses built before 1980.  About 1050 homes were found with
loose fill asbestos in them and the government funded a costly
remediation program.  After the establishment of self-government
the program continued and was underwritten by the Commonwealth
government.

It has recently emerged that the clean-up was not always
successful and so in June the ACT established an Asbestos Response
Taskforce to check again and where necessary to again remove the
material, or in extreme instances to demolish homes.

The earlier extensive program didn't extend beyond the ACT border,
although Mr Fluffy's loose fill asbestos did.  And neither is the
current re-established program extending into New South Wales.  It
came to light in 2005 that in the 1960s and 1970s loose fill
asbestos was delivered from Canberra to Batemans Bay homes in
bags.

Former Batehaven resident, Piers Booth, recalls putting the
asbestos in by hand.  He recalls, "We'd have to spread it in
manually by getting into the roof space with the material and
spreading it around by hand." They wore no protective clothing nor
masks.

The asbestos was provided via a local real estate agent, Jack
Parker, who helped with putting it in.  Piers Booth suspects the
asbestos went into a number of Bateman's Bay homes.  He sold the
house in 1972, but he was completely unaware of the dangers of the
asbestos until he heard an ABC TV Stateline report in 2005 on the
ACT government undertaking its massive clean-up program.  He
contacted the ABC who then contacted the new owners of the house.

"They had cleaned the stuff out and taken it to the tip," said Mr
Booth.

"It's a very dangerous substance and every step should be taken to
eradicate the problem. But I do appreciate that it's going to be
very expensive, and the ordinary householder probably can't afford
to do it without help from the government."

When Piers Booth's story came out the Eurobodalla Shire Council
raised the issue with the NSW government.

Then Mayor, Fergus Thomson says that until then the Council had
been unaware of the problem.  "It was an issue that was way beyond
us as a Council to remedy and therefore we believed it should have
fallen into the State government's area of responsibility," he
said.

Mr Thomson says he understands quite a number of houses would have
had the loose fill asbestos put in, but he believes many would
have been demolished during the extensive development of the
Eurobodalla coast in the last 25 years.

Steve Whan became the Member for Monaro in the NSW government in
2003 and recalls, "I had people contacting me from around the
region to say they had Mr Fluffy [insulation] or had paid
themselves to have it removed from their roofs."

He became aware of a scattering of houses in Queanbeyan,
Jindabyne, Bega, Goulburn, and Batemans Bay/Batehaven.  He says he
raised it with his government, "Unfortunately the attitude was
that it was hard to see who was responsible for it. And there was
a concern that government stepping in to help remove that in NSW
would lead to what I believe is a false assumption, but one that
was made, that it would be a precedent for removal of asbestos
sheeting as well."

Steve Whan believes 'it remains a very unfair situation with the
Commonwealth is not helping houses across the ACT border'.

"There is no one level of government that you could say is
responsible for this. It was no-one's fault. No-one at the time
knew how dangerous the stuff was. But what we do need to see now
is each level of government showing some willingness to help out."

He said, "I'd like to see Commonwealth funding offered to New
South Wales, and I'd like to see New South Wales actually talking
proactively to the Commonwealth."

The Commonwealth's Member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Peter Hendy, says
the Commonwealth government has never been involved in funding a
remedy for the problem in New South Wales, and that it is a
'legacy' issue from when the Commonwealth had responsibility for
the ACT.

"It's a New South Wales issue basically, plus with local
councils," he said.

Dr Hendy said he's discussed the issue with local mayors and with
Senator Eric Abetz, whose department he says is responsible for
the issue.  He says he is not aware of any discussion between the
Commonwealth and New South Wales governments but says, "A dialogue
would be useful and if I could facilitate that I'd be happy to."

Dr Hendy stressed that not many houses in south east NSW would be
involved as the My Fluffy operation was principally concentrated
on the ACT and Queanbeyan.

However, he recognizes that if there are a lot of houses in a
council area then that council will assistance in dealing with
that.

"The thing to do is to work co-operatively with different levels
of government on that. But the state government has an overall
responsibility."

Meanwhile, in the absence of a survey no-one knows where any of
these houses may be.

Steve Whan says, 'The difficulty with that is that if there isn't
a commitment there to help home-owners deal with some of the costs
then some people won't actually participate in the survey."

His concern is that not being able to afford a remedy that could
range from specialist asbestos removal through to demolition, as
has happened in the ACT, then some will fear being identified and
losing the value of their homes.

As long as neither Commonwealth nor State governments step in as
has been done in the ACT then the mystery of where these houses
may be will continue and their remediation may not be done.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MV Miner Removal Dealing With Fibro
----------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that Nova Scotia Land met with a contractor to
discuss work safety and hazardous waste on the MV Miner as plans
to move the wrecked ship are put into action.  It ran aground on
Scatarie Island in Cape Breton, N.S., three years ago. The
environmental, transportation and health and safety permits are
all in place.  Nova Scotia Land, the Crown corporation overseeing
the $12 million project, said it's a potentially dangerous job.

"The main material that has to be removed is the asbestos. There's
asbestos wrap on a lot of the plumbing that's in the vessel and
that has to be removed," said Chief Operating Officer Joel
MacLean.

The MV Miner was being towed to Turkey when it broke its line near
Nova Scotia. The ocean and rocky coast have shredded the steel
hull.  Crews will build a base camp on the island and set up an
access road from the shore to the ship. Some 40 people will work a
four-day rotation to do the job.

"The Miner will be broken down from the top down to maintain the
stability as they go down towards the water," MacLean said. "The
access road will give them access to use heavy equipment. The
equipment will be large excavators with long reach arms and shears
on the end of them."

The steel will be loaded onto a barge and sold for scrap.

Antigonish-based R J MacIsaac Construction has until November to
remove the wreck.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Summary Judgment for Defendant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a California appeals court has reversed a trial court's
summary judgment award in favor of an insulation company in an
asbestos lawsuit on the grounds that it failed to meet its burden
of proof.

Justice H. Walter Croskey delivered the July 8 opinion in the
Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate
District, Division Three. Justices Joan D. Klein and Richard
Dennis Aldrich concurred.

Claimant Rose Marie Ganoe, individually and as special
administrator of the estate of Mark Ganoe, filed the appeal of the
trial court's approval of summary judgment in favor of Metalclad
Insulation Corporation.

Metalclad was granted summary judgment by the trial court based on
the plaintiffs' "factually devoid" discovery responses, a
statement by the decedent's co-worker where he said he had never
heard of the defendant and another statement by a Metalclad
employee that it had never performed work at the decedent's
workplace.

However, the defendant also produced a document showing that it
had, in fact, performed work at the decedent's workplace.

Croskey held that the plaintiffs had provided enough specific
triable facts linking Metalclad to the decedent's asbestos
exposure. As a result, the appeals court reversed the summary
judgment order.

Ganoe worked as a utility man at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company plant in Los Angeles from 1968 until 1979. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in September 2010 allegedly resulting
from asbestos exposure during his work at the plant.

Three months later, he filed an asbestos lawsuit in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County.

Ganoe died while the action was pending, converting the case to a
survival and wrongful death action.

In October 2012, Metalclad sought summary judgment, arguing the
plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence showing Ganoe was
exposed to asbestos for which the defendant was liable.

Additionally, Metalclad claimed the plaintiffs' discovery
responses were "factually devoid."

In support of its motion, Metalclad submitted documents including:

     -- The plaintiffs' boilerplate response to Metalclad's
special interrogatory seeking "all facts" regarding Ganoe's
exposure to asbestos-containing products supplied, installed or
removed by the defendant;

     -- A case report identifying Ganoe's former co-worker Richard
Ettress as the sole product identification witness for Metalclad
products and services;

     -- An excerpt from Ettress's deposition testimony in which he
admitted that he had never heard of Metalclad; and

     -- A declaration from Metalclad employee, Don Trueblood, in
which he stated that "Metalclad has no information, documents to
suggest, or knowledge of having ever performed any work or
supplied materials to be used" at the plant.

In December 2012, Metalclad provided a document at Trueblood's
deposition showing it had performed insulation work on steam
piping at the plan in 1974.

Trueblood responded that Metalclad did not perform a search of its
records as requested by the plaintiffs but had initially provided
discovery responses based on a search performed in another case
involving Goodyear.

As a result, the plaintiffs served an amended discovery response
to the defendant, stating that in 1974 a new machine was added to
the plant, requiring new steam pipes to be installed and
insulated. The tie-ins of the new asbestos-containing products
required removal of the old insulation.

The decedent was allegedly present during this process, causing
him to breathe asbestos dust. The plaintiffs allege Metalclad
performed the insulation work on steam piping at the plant.

Then in January 2013, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion for summary judgment, submitting excerpts from the
depositions of Ettress, Ganoe and Trueblood, a declaration by an
expert witness and another by Ettress.

Ganoe's deposition included a testimony stating that the steam
lines on the new machine contained insulation that "looked like
dirty chalk," and that he was present during the 'dusty'
insulation work.

In Etterss' declaration, he stated that he did not recall any
other construction requiring insulation work other than the new
machinery in 1974.

Expert witness Charles Ay stated that the probability that
insulation contained asbestos when hot pipes were involved
exceeded 99 percent.

However, Metalclad argued that it satisfied its burden on summary
judgment and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue
of fact by merely speculating that the defendant performed the
insulation work and that it involved removing old insulation.

Judge Emilie Elias granted summary judgment, finding that the
defendant had met its burden of proof and that the plaintiffs
failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  She agreed that the
information was speculative and that the plaintiffs' evidence
failed because the Metalclad document did not prove that it had
performed the work in the vicinity of Ganoe.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing the trial court
erred when concluding Metalclad had shifted the burden of proof
and the plaintiffs had failed to raise any triable issue of
material fact.

Croskey explained that while the trial court held that Metalclad
met its burden of proof, it is still unclear whether Elias
considered the plaintiffs' amended response to Metalclad's
discovery.

"It would be inequitable to allow a moving party to withhold
relevant discovery and then meet its burden on summary judgment
without consideration of such newly discovered evidence or the
opposing party's response to that evidence," Croskey wrote.

Metalclad argued that the plaintiffs filed an inadequate response
to its "all facts" discovery request.  It also argues that
Ettress's statement that he had never heard of Metalclad is enough
to demonstrate that the plaintiffs could not prove Ganoe had been
exposed to asbestos from the defendant.

However, Croskey held that the plaintiffs' amended response
contained "specific facts" showing that Metalclad had exposed
Ganoe to asbestos in 1974 when it performed insulation work at the
plant.

"Therefore, this response did not lead to an inference that the
plaintiffs could not prove causation," he wrote.

Furthermore, Croskey held that the defendant only submitted a two-
page excerpt from Ettress's deposition and failed to provide
evidence that Ettress was able to identify other contractors who
had performed the insulation work.

Metalclad did not show Ettress its logo to see if he could
recognize it. They merely asked him if he recognized the name more
than 40 years after the alleged events.

"The negative response to that question by itself was insufficient
to create an inference of nonexposure or that the plaintiffs could
not prove exposure by other means," Croskey wrote. "On these
grounds, the trial court erred in concluding that Metalclad had
shifted the burden of proof."

As for Metalclad's allegations on the plaintiffs' failure to raise
triable issues of material fact, Croskey held that summary
judgment should have been denied even if the defendant met its
burden.  He explained that the plaintiffs brought evidence showing
Metalclad performed insulation work on steam piping at the plant
in 1974, that the only construction work requiring insulation work
at the plant in 1974 occurred in Ganoe's department when the new
machinery was installed and that Ganoe worked was present in the
vicinity of the insulation work where breathable asbestos dust was
present.

"Viewed in its best light, this evidence supported a reasonable
inference that the plaintiffs could show causation," Croskey
wrote. "Therefore, the trial court erred in finding that the
plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitoba Housing Not Upfront on Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Gibson, writing for Metro News, reported that following
three years of construction at their Manitoba Housing senior's
complex, two residents say they're getting evicted after being
left in the dark about what was going on.  And to make matters
worse, the pair says the construction has included asbestos
removal without their knowledge and without additional protection
being afforded to residents.

"It's damaging us," explained Ralph McKenny, 72, who has lived at
the building at 555 Ellice Avenue for six years, and said he only
learned about the asbestos after asking a worker why he was
wearing a mask two months back. "He said it's for asbestos removal
and I said 'really?'".

"They shouldn't have had any sort of removal of asbestos while
anybody's living in the building."

McKenny and his relative Barbara McKenny, 49, who also lives in
the building, told Metro the only notice they've seen was a
caution sticker posted on a neighbouring suite -- the same day
they say an inspector from Manitoba Workplace Health and Safety
came by to follow up on a complaint they'd made. They said the
sticker was removed later that day.

McKenny and Barbara have also made a complaint to the Manitoba
Human Rights Commission after residents were given notice to leave
their suites by Oct. 31 in late June.

"They kept us in the dark," said Barbara. "They want to sweep this
all under the carpet."

Nadine Delisle with Manitoba Housing said the work is being done
to get the building ready to become an assisted living facility in
2015. She said residents are being asked to leave while work that
could impact them -- like replacing the boiler and repairs to the
elevators -- are done.  She said residents can return when the
restoration is complete, but admits they'd have to pay as much as
$700 more a month to take part in the pilot assisted living
program.

McKenny and Barbara both said the extra cost means they can't
afford to move back.

Delisle said she wasn't aware asbestos was being removed from the
building, but said it's something she'd look into it.

Meanwhile Manitoba Housing is helping residents find new homes at
other buildings, but McKenny and Barbara want construction halted
until residents leave.

"It's making me sick," said McKenny. "It's a health hazard."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Jury Awards $9.3MM Against Manufacturer
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Massachusetts jury has
awarded $9.3 million at the end of an asbestos trial in which the
plaintiffs alleged that a former pipefitter union business manager
was exposed to Turner & Newall Limited's Limpet spray insulation
in the 1960s.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts jury
reached the verdict on June 20 after a two-week trial. Turner &
Newall Limited (T&N Limited) was the lone remaining defendant at
the time of the verdict, according to the verdict sheet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Prompts Temporary Closure of Retailer
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that concerns about asbestos exposure have
prompted the temporary closure of a discount retailer in Hobart's
northern suburbs.

A member of the public contacted unions, claiming customers and
staff at The Reject Shop in Moonah had been exposed to the
potentially lethal substance over the past couple of weeks.

Kevin Harkins from Unions Tasmania said he was told workers were
ripping up asbestos tiles as part of renovations to the store.

"That's encouraging that people obviously feel strongly enough
about these type of issues to ring us to make something happen,"
he said.

"We've then talked to Worksafe Tasmania about this, and as I
understand it, Worksafe Tasmania have actually stopped the work."

Richard Baker who owns a neighbouring shop said Reject Shop staff
arriving for work did not appear to know anything was wrong.

"The guys opened up like normal, and then within about hour or so,
they shut the doors. The staff hung around for a little bit, and
then went home," he said.

Mr Harkins said reports to the union were that part of renovations
required vinyl tiles to be removed that contained asbestos.

"Where the removal was occurring is open, so that anyone that
moved through that area had a possibility of being exposed."

"Obviously there'll have to be an investigation to take place."

Store closed 'until further notice'

Simon Cocker from Asbestos Free Tasmania said precautions should
have been taken before the tiles were touched.

"They should've had the building inspected. And any competent
inspector would've looked at those tiles and said, 'Oh yeah, 60s,
70s tiles, there's a fair chance there's asbestos in the backing
or the glue'," he said.

Union officials say asbestos exposure was not a rare occurrence,
and there had been a serious breach at Parliament Square project.

The Reject Shop confirmed the Moonah shop had been closed after
the discovery of material potentially containing asbestos in a
store room.  It said initial air tests had been run and there
would be more testing when the suspect material had been removed.

Mr Coker is advising anyone who has recently visited the shop to
take precautions.

"Keep a record; the time, the place, the events. Get a witness to
sign it, and just file it away and hope you never need it," he
said.

Asbestos experts warn that any exposure to the fibre can be
deadly.  The store is expected to be closed for several days.
Worksafe is yet to confirm that the tiles contain asbestos.  It
said it wanted to make sure the area was safe before investigating
further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Firm Fined by Indiana State
----------------------------------------------------------
The Star Press reported that Donathan's Inspection and Removal
Service, 3504 N. Linden St., has agreed to pay a $500 civil
penalty to settle a complaint that it failed to remove more than
two cubic feet of asbestos containing material from a house to be
demolished at 1919 S. Burlington Drive this past winter.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management claims an
inspection found the asbestos material in the basement.

Robert Donathan told The Star Press the basement flooded during
the removal and left behind asbestos material that was mistaken
for concrete on a pile of mud.

"There is not supposed to be a speck . . . when we're done," he
said, adding that this was his first such violation since becoming
an asbestos remover in 1988.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Residents Take Appeal to Commonwealth
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that owners of homes in Canberra, Australia,
affected by asbestos contamination have taken their appeal for
help directly to the Federal Government.

The Commonwealth has signalled it was willing to help the ACT
Government deal with the threat of asbestos contamination, when
the responsible federal minister, Senator Eric Abetz met with ACT
Chief Minister Katy Gallagher.

As Employment and Public Service Minister, Senator Abetz is
leading the Abbott Government response to the Mr Fluffy asbestos
crisis.

In July, Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh, Member for Canberra Gai
Brodtmann and ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy sat down with Senator
Abetz to discuss the matter.

Brianna Heseltine from the Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action
Group said it was a productive meeting.

"We're hoping to lock in a time line for the Commonwealth to
respond," she said.

"Senator Abetz had initially pencilled in half an hour to meet
with me and he made an hour to meet with me about the human impact
of this problem."

About 1,000 Canberra properties had loose Amosite asbestos
installed by insulation company Mr Fluffy in the late 1960s and
1970s.

A Federal Government program aimed to remove the asbestos between
1988 and 1993 but some cleared homes have since been found to
contain potentially deadly remnant fibres.

Ms Heseltine said a Commonwealth solution could be just weeks
away.

"I think it's fair to say at some point in August we may be in a
position to look at some sort of solution, but I don't want to
pre-empt the final time frame," she said.

Ms Heseltine said she was glad the Federal Government was coming
to the table.

"I think it shows that the Commonwealth is exploring the problem,"
she said.

"We understand that the ACT Government requires Commonwealth
assistance.

"But it's very much up to the Commonwealth to decide what its role
will be and we will await that."

Ms Heseltine said Queanbeyan home owners have joined her action
group after it was confirmed at least 11 houses there were
affected.

"We've included Queanbeyan and we're hoping to make this a
national campaign," she said.

"It was a great oversight in the past that the houses didn't get
cleaned [of asbestos] but now we know the cleaning didn't work.

"So we're saying 'there's new information here and what can we do
about it?'"

Ms Heseltine said many residents would like financial assistance
to demolish and rebuild their homes.

"There'd need to be some kind of mass demolition scheme and there
could be a number of creative options," she said.

"I'm sure bright minds at the political level can come up with a
range of options to address the long-term issues."

But Ms Heseltine said the options were needed urgently.

"We have people living in homes that aren't very habitable," she
said.

"People with portable showers in their driveways, three rooms in
their homes sealed up, linen cupboards that can't be accessed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Attorney General Sues Oxford Fibro Company
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MassLive.com reported that an Oxford, Massachusetts environmental
company is accused of failing to follow proper procedures and
safety precautions while removing asbestos-containing materials
from a home in Sturbridge, the Massachusetts Attorney General's
office said.

The Atttorney Generals office sued Patriots Environmental Corp. in
Suffolk Superior Court.  The suit also alleges that the company
failed to pay permit fees to the Commonwealth for at least 24
separate projects, as well as a $50,000 penalty by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for
asbestos and hazardous waste violations at other sites, the news
release said:

"Asbestos removal is a serious public safety matter and must be
performed according to strict procedures to prevent exposure to
asbestos fibers, which can create very serious health problems,"
Attorney General Martha Coakley said. "Companies working with
asbestos-containing materials must be held to the highest
standards of care and compliance as ordered under our state air
laws and regulations."

According to the complaint, in July 2013, Patriots was hired to
remove asbestos shingles from the exterior walls of a single-
family home in Sturbridge. During the renovation, Patriots
allegedly caused the asbestos shingles to break apart, dropping
debris onto on the ground and into unsealed plastic bags exposed
to the air. Patriots also allegedly failed to wet, cover, or seal
containers that had the asbestos shingles during the renovation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Childcare Center to Close Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Belot, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
Goodstart Early Learning Childcare Centre in Aranda, Queensland,
has decided to close permanently, following an asbestos scare at
the centre in July.

In a statement issued by the organsation, NSW/ACT state manager
Nicole Jones said testing of the soil and air around the centre
had returned negative results for Amosite fibres.

But despite this, Ms Jones said the centre would still permanently
shut down, as it was too much of a risk to leave open.

"Our first priority must be to ensure the safety and wellbeing of
our children, staff and families. While the soil and air is clear,
we know there are Amosite fibres in the walls," she said.

The Bindel Street centre was originally closed on July 4 after
pinholes and nail holes were found inside the walls of the
building during a routine inspection, which led to fears the
centre may be contaminated with asbestos.

A Goodstart Early Learning spokesman had previously said the
centre had closed as a precaution and would not to reopen this
week, but left open the possibility of a re-opening at a later
time.

However a second announcement confirmed the centre would be
closing for good.

Ms Jones said given the nature of their business, Goodstart Early
Learning believed they could not continue running the Aranda
centre knowing there were Amosite fibres in the walls.

"This may pose an ongoing risk and significant disruption to
families that we are not prepared to take. In addition, the
ongoing management of this type of Asbestos places unrealistic
responsibilities onto our staff, whose primary focus should be on
the care and education of our children," she said.

She said they didn't take the decision lightly and Goodstart would
be determining placements at their other Canberra centres
according to Federal government guidelines.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said the childcare centre
had certainly been put through every test imaginable in the last
two weeks although it is impossible to give a 100 per cent
guarantee of the future.

"A business has to do everything they can reasonable and
practically do and Goodstart have been doing everything they can
to give that guarantee," he told ABC Radio.

Goodstart had been a tenant of the Bindel Street building since
2010 although management had no record on any installation or
removal of any amosite asbestos from the childcare centre.

"It does appear very likely that the Amosite asbestos located in
the wall cavities would be as a result of the building having "Mr
Fluffy" loose fill insulation installed in the ceiling cavity at
some time in the past," said the Goodstart spokesman.

"While this was removed in the 1980's as part of the Commonwealth
Government's asbestos program there are some dust remnants behind
our walls in the cavities, cornices and joists."

Non-invasive inspections of the building were carried out in 2010,
2011 and 2013 although those inspections did not break into the
walls and ceilings of the building, and as such the amosite
absestos was not expected.

"The Worksafe ACT inspection carried out in May 2014 however, was
an "invasive" survey that did penetrate the walls and the ceiling
and led to remnants of loose fill Amosite insulation being
detected in areas that are otherwise inaccessible during everyday
use of the building," said the spokesman.

Mr McCabe said in early July there was no evidence there had been
any asbestos exposure to people at the centre after the discovery
insulation reminants

"They've had their monitoring done and there are no fibres in the
air within the building and they've found no fibres within the
precinct of where the children are playing," he said. "So it's all
a precautionary measure at this stage."

Mr McCabe said that, while the holes were considered very low
risk, it was always best not to take any chances when it came to
dealing with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas SC Rejects "Every Exposure" Theory
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that an asbestos claimant
failed to offer legally sufficient causation evidence, denying the
"every exposure" theory on the grounds that simply offering
evidence of exposure regarding a dose-related disease should not
imply automatic liability.

Justice Don R. Willett delivered the opinion of the court, with
Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht and justices Paul W. Green, Phil
Johnson and Jeff Brown joining.

Justice Debra H. Lehrmann dissented with the majority and wrote a
separate dissenting opinion. Justices Jeffrey S. Boyd and John
Phillip Devine joined.

Plaintiffs Susan Elaine Bostic, individually and as personal
representative of the heirs and estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic,
Helen Donnahoe and Kyle Anthony Bostic alleged negligence and
products liability for the decedent's development of mesothelioma
and resulting death.

Defendant Georgia Pacific Corp. appealed the trial court's
decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas.

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision
reversing the trial court's verdict and rendered a take-nothing
judgment, but did not agree with the language of the lower court's
decision.

According to the complaint, Bostic assisted his father Harold
Bostic in remodeling projects for friends and family as a child
and teenager in the 1960s and '70s. The two allegedly used Georgia
Pacific drywall joint compound when performing the construction
work.

Bostic alleged he was exposed to asbestos when he mixed the dry
compound with water and then sanded the drywall material.

Bostic's father testified at trial that he used Georgia Pacific
drywall compound roughly 98 percent of the time.

The decedent also alleged that he was exposed to asbestos from the
Knox Glass Co., where he was employed during the summers from
1980-1982. He was required to cut asbestos cloth without
respiratory protection. Additionally, he alleged take-home
exposure from his father's clothing while his father worked at
Knox Glass from 1962 until 1984.

Bostic also claimed he was exposed to asbestos while employed at
Palestine Contractors in 1977 and 1978, where he worked with brake
pads and other vehicle parts containing asbestos.

Bostic was diagnosed with mesothelioma when he was 40 years old in
2002. He died as a result of the injury in 2003.

Bostic's family filed the lawsuit against Georgia Pacific and
several other defendants, alleging the decedent was injured as a
result of asbestos exposure from the defendants' products.

The case went to trial in 2006 where the jury found that the
defendant was liable under claims of negligence and marketing
defect theories. It assessed 25 percent of the causation to Knox
Glass and 75 percent to Georgia Pacific.

The trial court awarded the Bostics approximately $6.8 million in
compensatory damages and about $4.8 million in punitive damages.

Georgia Pacific appealed.

The court of appeals concluded that the evidence of causation was
legally insufficient and rendered a take-nothing judgment.

The Bostics appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that the
court of appeals erred when it concluded that the evidence was
insufficient.

Agreeing with the lower court, the Supreme Court cited the Flores
decision to support its decision.

In Flores, the court concluded that the causation evidence was
legally insufficient, holding that the plaintiffs needed to
provide defendant-specific evidence relating to the approximate
exposure dose and that the dose was a substantial factor in
causing the injury, adding that the exposure must be of sufficient
magnitude to exceed the threshold before the likelihood of
causation can be inferred.

Relating to this case, Flores raises the issue of the "every
exposure" theory. Willett explained that when dealing with dose-
related diseases, including mesothelioma, any exposure alone will
not suffice to establish causation because the likelihood of
developing a disease increases with the dose.

"If any exposure at all were sufficient to cause mesothelioma,
everyone would suffer from it or at least be at risk of
contracting the disease," Willett wrote.

Willett explained that the every exposure theory negates the
plaintiff's burden to prove causation by a preponderance of
evidence because it accepts that the failure to find a safe dose
means that every exposure causes the illness, even background
exposure.

Furthermore, Willett stated that proof of exposure from a
defendant alone "should not end the inquiry and result in
automatic liability."

"[E]ven in mesothelioma cases, liability cannot be imposed on
every conceivable defendant whose product exposed the plaintiff to
some unquantified amount of asbestos, without proof of something
more," he added.

Willett further explained that the any exposure theory is
illogical in such cases where any exposure to a defendant's
product above background levels impose liability while the
background level itself has a range of contamination varying from
location to location and should still be ignored.

"We fail to see how the theory can, as a matter of logic, exclude
higher than normal background levels as the cause of the
plaintiff's disease, but accept that any exposure from an
individual defendant, no matter how small, should be accepted as a
cause in face of the disease," he wrote.

However, Lehrmann wrote in his dissent that the plaintiffs weren't
relying on the every exposure theory to begin with, stating that
the majority simply misunderstood expert testimony.

"I agree with the court that evidence that the plaintiff was
exposed to any quantity of the defendant's asbestos, without more,
is insufficient by itself to prove the causal link between a
particular defendant's product and the plaintiff's injury," he
wrote. "But this is not a controversial stance -- no one argues
that it should."

Beyond the questionable every exposure allegation, the Bostics
argued that the court of appeals erred when it required them to
prove "but for causation" in addition to substantial factor
causation. Attempting to clarify, the Supreme Court assumed that
the appeals court required the plaintiff to satisfy a proof of
requirement that but for Bostic's exposure to Georgia Pacific's
products, he would not have contracted mesothelioma.

While the court agreed that a "but for causation" test is a
recognized standard when proving causation in fact, it held that
this case does not require such proof.

Citing Flores, the court held that proving but for causation can
be humanly impossible, as it is difficult to establish which
fibers from which defendant actually caused the injury.

The court concluded that while the Bostics were required to
establish substantial factor causation, the Restatements
addressing the "but for causation" issue do not require the
plaintiffs to meet a strict "but for causation" test in this case.

Lehrmann agreed, stating that although the plaintiffs' evidence is
not exact, "we do not require a plaintiff to reduce the quantity
of exposure 'to mathematical precision.'"

However, Willett still held that the plaintiffs failed to
establish substantial factor causation.

Citing the Havner decision, Willett explained when providing
evidence of causation, the expert testimony of causation must be
scientifically reliable.

Furthermore, where direct evidence of causation is lacking, the
plaintiff must prove the claims by a preponderance of the evidence
and epidemiological studies showing the product more than doubled
the plaintiff's risk of injury.

"We think the plaintiff should be required to establish more than
a doubling of the risk attributable to the defendant's product
. . .," Willett wrote, "but do not think it necessary or fair to
require a plaintiff to track down every possible source of
asbestos exposure and disprove that those other exposures caused
the disease."

In Lehrmann's dissent, she disagreed with the majority, saying
Havner is not useful for resolving the question of whether
exposure to the product was a substantial cause of the injury.

"By disregarding this avenue of proof, the court turns
substantial-factor causation on its head, requiring a toxic tort
plaintiff to prove that exposure to a particular defendant's
product was, by itself, the cause of his injury," she wrote.

The majority disagreed, stating that Havner was also concerned
with specific causation as well as general causation.

During trial, Bostic claimed that he had used drywall compounds
from seven different manufacturers but failed to indicate the
duration or intensity of exposure.

In fact, Bostic's experts developed their opinions on the every
exposure theory without considering the decedent's dose.

"An expert's testimony that brings no more than 'his credentials
and a subjective opinion' will not support a judgment," Willett
wrote.

Justice Eva M. Guzman joined in all but two parts, writing a
separate concurring opinion.

She argues that the majority arrived at the correct conclusion but
set the evidence bar too high and the dissent reached its
"implausible" conclusion by neglecting the preponderance standard
when proving causation.

In Guzman's concurring opinion, she agrees the court correctly
ruled that the evidence of causation was legally insufficient. But
she explains that both the majority opinion and the dissenting
opinion miss the mark, arguing that the majority demands too much
and the dissent "misconstrues our precedents to require too
little."

"In short, I am concerned that both writings do not faithfully
interpret the preponderance of the evidence standard that stands
as the lodestar of civil liability in Texas," Guzman wrote. "A
plaintiff must always prove his toxic tort claim by this standard:
nothing less will suffice, but nothing more is required."

Guzman argues that it is not impossible to prove an occasional
exposure case regarding mesothelioma with epidemiological studies
as long as the litigation framework adheres to the court's "well
settled precedents" as they relate to the preponderance of
evidence standard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITD Settles with EPA for Inmate's Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Berry, writing for Boise Weekly, reported that the Idaho
Transportation Department has agreed to settle with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of asbestos
regulations.

In April 2013, ITD hired inmates at the St. Anthony Idaho Work
Camp, a division of the Idaho Department of Correction, to remove
approximately 460 feet of flooring tiles at an ITD maintenance
station in Rigby using mechanical chippers and buffers. Waste from
this project had been contaminated with asbestos, which was placed
in a trash dumpster -- a violation of asbestos disposal protocols.
The material was then removed from the site to a landfill
unapproved to handle asbestos waste. The EPA was notified of the
incident by a worker and supervisor on the job site.

The workers had not been trained in asbestos handling or disposal,
and accepted methods of waste disposal were not used.

The last asbestos test performed on the site took place in July
1989, and a single sample taken during that examination tested
negative for the noxious material. However, industry standards
indicate that such exams include multiple tests. After learning of
the EPA's allegations seven months after the alleged incident, the
ITD hired a consultant to perform an independent test, during
which two-thirds of samples taken by the consultant tested
positive for asbestos.

In the settlement, released July 9, ITD has agreed to pay a
$55,800 penalty. As part of that settlement, ITD neither admits
nor denies allegations made by the EPA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Delay Concerns Bozeman Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Ditzler, writing for NBC Montana, reported that delays have
stalled an asbestos cleanup project in downtown Bozeman, Montana,
raising concerns with neighbors and businesses. Viewers reached
out to NBC Montana to find out what's happening with the project,
saying they weren't getting answers.

Workers started pulling up the concrete sidewalk next to the Heebs
Market the first week of June. The project was supposed to wrap up
in the beginning of July.

Glen Deal owns Lockhorn Cider House on Wallace Avenue in Bozeman.
The business opened in February, but Deal said the last month has
been tough. He explained an ongoing asbestos hazard cleanup
project that's blocking the sidewalk is not helping.

"The most objective thing to blame would be that ugly hole," Deal
said.

Lockhorn Cider House relies on foot and bike traffic, and said
since the sidewalk has been closed, they have fewer customers
coming their way. Deal wanted to know why it is taking more than a
month to clean up the site.

"We just don't see a lot of movement over here," he said. "We
don't see a lot of progress."

"We have to follow the DEQ's strict guidelines on excavating,"
explained Brit Fontenot, the Director of Economic Development for
the City of Bozeman. He explained testing is holding the project
up.

"You have to stop work, you have to take that sample, and you have
to send it to the lab," Fontenot said.

The soil samples they tested keep coming back positive, forcing
them to stop work and retest.

"It's one of the most expensive sidewalks in Bozeman at this
point," he said.

So far, the cost is $70,000. But the City has a financial stake in
making sure it's done right. They will get nearly 80 percent of
the cost back if they follow DEQ standards.

Fontenot said they now expect the project to wrap up, but Deal
said he wishes he would have known sooner.

"I'd like to see more attention given to managing these projects
well," Deal said.

Fontenot explained while the project is inconvenient, the project
is a matter of public health and safety, and the city will take as
long as needed to do the job correctly.

One neighborhood resident asked if the site being exposed for so
long would create an asbestos hazard. The City of Bozeman says the
site, although an eyesore, is being properly and safely
maintained. The Gallatin City County Health Department the site
needs to stay wet and covered, so the asbestos does not become
airborne, where someone might breathe it in.

"They're very cautious about raising that dust, so any project
whether it be here in Bozeman or elsewhere, you keep a very
careful about raising that dust, so there's simple precautions to
do, but they have to be done," explained Environmental Director
Tim Roark.

The City of Bozeman said the asbestos problem won't go away on its
own, and they will have to do more projects like this in the
future. They explained they plan to communicate better with the
surrounding neighbors, and to come up with a better process for
future projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Junks Fibro Insurance Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that an Ohio appeals court has dismissed a
valve manufacturer's claim seeking declaratory judgment against an
insurer on the grounds that the trial court failed to enter a
final summary judgment order.

Judge Patrick Dinkelacker delivered the July 9 opinion in the
Court of Appeals First Appellate District of Ohio with Judge
Sylvia Sieve Hendon concurring.

Judge R. Patrick DeWine concurred but filed a separate opinion.

Plaintiff William Powell Company was granted partial summary
judgment in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in response
to its request for declaratory judgment against OneBeacon
Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company.

OneBeacon appealed the decision, arguing that the plaintiffs'
insurance policy had been exhausted. The appeals court held that
the trial court's judgment was not final, meaning the appeals
court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

William Powell, a manufacturer of industrial valves which included
asbestos-containing component parts, carried liability insurance
between 1960 and 1977 with OneBeacon's predecessor as a result of
numerous asbestos lawsuits.

The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of
its rights under its primary and excess policies with the
insurance company.

However, OneBeacon filed a counterclaim asking the court to
declare the parties' rights under the policies.

In response, William Powell requested partial summary judgment,
arguing that it had proved the existence of several missing
policies, which contained annual limits of liability.

OneBeacon also filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that
the asbestos claims against the plaintiff were caused by a single
occurrence and that if the court found multiple occurrences, the
plaintiff is not entitled to aggregate annualized limits because
its policies had been exhausted.

The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted William Powell's
motion in part and denied OneBeacon's motion completely, holding
that the dispute involves three questions:

  -- Whether the aggregate limitation of liability applies
annually or for the term;

  -- What constitutes an "occurrence?"; and

  -- Whether the plaintiff can direct the allocation of funds.

The court ruled in favor of William Powell in regard to the first
two questions.

As to the allocation issue, the court found that the issues of
fact precluded summary judgment.

As a result, OneBeacon appealed the judgment.

However, Dinkelacker held that the Ohio Constitution limits an
appellate court's jurisdiction to the review only final,
appealable orders.  He explained that "an order 'that affects a
substantial right made in a special proceeding' is a final order.
A declaratory judgment action is a special proceeding."

An order affects a substantial right if, in the absence of an
immediate appeal, it forecloses appropriate relief in the future,
he added.

"When a trial court enters a judgment in a declaratory-judgment
action, the order must declare all of the parties' rights and
obligations to constitute a final, appealable order. The trial
court does not fulfill its function if it does not construe the
documents at issue," he wrote.

In this case, Dinkelacker stated that the trial court failed to
decide the summary judgment request on the issue of allocation.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the issue of allocation deals
with situations involving long-term injury or damage where it is
difficult to determine which insurer must bear the loss.

The Supreme Court further held that an insurer is only obligated
to pay if the insured is awarded damages.

In the case at hand, there is a determination of liability, but
not of how much will be paid out of each insurance policy, the
court ruled. Because the trial court did not decide any claim in
its entirety and instead partially decided all the claims, the
results are still unknown, it said.

"Consequently, the court has not completely declared the rights of
the parties under the insurance policies at issue," Dinkelacker
wrote. "Further, the absence of an appeal would not foreclose
relief in the future. Therefore, the trial court's judgment does
not affect a substantial right made in a special proceeding."

The court concluded that because the judgment is not a final
appealable order, it has no choice but to dismiss the appeal.

While DeWine agrees with the majority that the appeal must be
dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order, he disagreed with
the how the majority arrived at the conclusion.  He explains that
Civil Rule 54 does not apply to this case as it only allows a
court to enter final judgment for one or more of the claims or
parties.

Powell's complaint for declaratory judgment included six claims
for relief. Each claim sought a declaration of rights under
specific insurance policies.

"The decision issued by the trial court didn't decide any of
Powell's claims; that is, it didn't fully declare the parties'
rights under any of the enumerated policies," DeWine wrote.
"Rather, the court decided certain issues and left others to be
decided later."

Furthermore, a provision of R.C. 2505.02 may still render a
judgment final and applies to orders affecting "a substantial
right made in a special proceeding."

"An order affects a substantial right if it has immediate
consequences, or if appropriate relief in the future would be
foreclosed in the absence of an immediate appeal," DeWine
explained.

However, he added that there is no immediate consequence of the
court's order and appropriate relief may be obtained through an
appeal upon the trial court's conclusion of the case.  As a
result, a substantial right is not affected, and the order is not
final.


                              *********

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  * * *