CAR_Public/140822.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 167

                             Headlines


1229-1273 REALTY: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
1ST CLASS: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "Whiteman" Suit Says
2429 LINCOLN: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AK STEEL: No Second Approval of Class Action Settlement
AMERICAN DATABANK: Court Did Not Certify Class in "Dunford" Suit

APPLE INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Hiring Agreement
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: Judge Approves $9-Mil. Class Action Accord
AVX CORP: Conspired to Fix Prices of Capacitors, Class Suit Says
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Maher" Suit Included in Gold Futures MDL
BARNES & NOBLE: Denial of Arbitration in "Nguyen" Suit Affirmed

BAYER HEALTH CARE: Plaintiffs' Mirena IUD MDL Bid Rejected
BLYTH INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Dismissal of Complaint
BLYTH INC: Former ViSalus Promoters File Putative Class Action
BP PLC: Ontario Shareholders Can't Sue Over 2010 Oil Spill
BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Decking Defects

BUTCHERY QUALITY: Has Misrepresented "Prime" Beef, Suit Claims
CAFE #25: "Mendoza" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAVALRY SPV: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Georgia Suit Says
CITIGROUP INC: Files Bid to Dismiss in "Larsen" v. Barclays
CITIGROUP INC: Provides Update on Interbank Offered Rates Cases

CITIGROUP INC: Provides Updates on Interchange Fees Litigation
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Awaits Finalization of Accord in Suit v. Unit
CRYSTAL WINDOW: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Commission
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Settlement Reached in Wage and Hour Lawsuit
DEBT FREE: Faces "Perri" Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA

EAGLE RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Perez" Suit Claims
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Falsely Advertised Products, Suit Claims
EXXON MOBIL: Class Action Over 2013 Oil Spill Can Proceed
FAMILY DOLLAR: Removed "Gunn" Class Suit to S.D. California
FISHLEGS LLC: "Kaba" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FOOT RELAXING: Faces "Ren" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FREDERICK HANNA: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FRITO-LAY: Labeling Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Rules
GENERAL CABLE: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Livonia Action
GOV'T EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

HANOVER INSURANCE: Motion to Alter or Amend Court Order Denied
HELEN OH: "Vivar" Suit  Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOT SPOT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HSBC CARD: "Fanning" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Virginia
J.A. WEITZMAN: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

JAYCO: Recalls 90 Seneca Class C Motorhomes Due to Fire Risk
JAYCO: Recalls 51 White Hawk Travel Trailers Due to Crash Risk
JDR MANUFACTURING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JMS BUILDING: Faces "Villalolos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Scubapro Aladin2

JP MORGAN: Chase Bank Settles Illinois TCPA Suit for $34 Million
KEMET CORPORATION: Defendant in Suit Against Capacitor Makers
KROGER CO: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over "Simple Truth" Chickens
L'OREAL USA: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Model's Image Use
LA FROMAGERIE: Recalls Hamel French Cheeses Due to E. Coli

LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Lea Night Stands Due to Scorching
LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Sensations Italian Sausage Jumbo Tortelloni
LOUISIANA HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Accused of Violating Civil Rights
LOUISVILLE, KY: Sued by AFSCME for Hiring More Part-Time Workers
McHENRY, IL: Circuit Court Clerk Sued Over Unlawful Fines

MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Overtime Class Action for $4.2 Million
MENDARED LLC: Fails to Provide Spread-of-Hours Pay, Suit Says
MUDTECH SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Menefee" Suit Says
NEVERIA NANDOS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEWMAR: Recalls Dutch Star Class A Motorhomes

NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Model Due to Wiper Motor That May Loosen
NSG HOSPITALITY: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Scheme to Inflate Stock
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Florida
ONTEL PRODUCTS: Recalls ISO7X Isometric Exercise Device

OS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls A1 Mountain Globe Curry Powders
PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
PAN ASIA: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Did Not Pay Hours Worked Over 40, Suit Says
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Sued in D. Del. Over Misleading Proxy Statement

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PRO SE PLANNING: Practices Law in La. Without License, Suit Says
PUBLIC STORAGE: Class Action Over Lease Contracts Can Proceed
RAYMOND CONTA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Says
RED BULL: Settles Deceptive Marketing Class Action for $13MM

REX SERVICES: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SEARS CANADA: Recalls Joe Boxer 3-Piece PJ Sets
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Violating Telecommunications Act
SELECT FOOD: Recalls Newman's Own Salad Dressings Due to Spoilage
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Korean Peanut Balls Due to Undeclared Crab

SERVICE CORP: "Scott" Suit Against Eden Memorial Park Now Closed
SERVICE CORP: "Helm" Plaintiff Appeals Order Decertifying Claims
SERVICE CORP: SCI California Faces "Samborsky" Suit
SERVICE CORP: No Longer Party to "Moulton" Complaint
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: Sued in Illinois Over Violation of FLSA

SOBEYS: Recalls Lean Ground Beef Due to Polystyrene Foam
SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Set Fees in Suit Over Reduced Benefits
SOUTHEASTERN MILLS: Recalls Shore Lunch Soup Mixes
SOUTHERN CROSS: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages & Penalties
SUNTECH POWER: California Court Refused to Dismiss "Bruce" Suit

SUZUKI: Recalls Kizashi Model Due to Possible Fuel Leak
T-BROTHERS: Recalls Korean Peanut Balls to Undeclared Crab & Squid
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mary's Organic Crackers and Pretzels
TRI COUNTY SECURITY: Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
UNILEVER US: Sued Over Keratin Infusion Hair-Care Products

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Chancery Ct. Nixes Deal in Medicis Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 19 Hearing in Obagi Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept 29 Settlement Hearing in Solta Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Costs Orders in Afexa Case

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Case Status Conference Took Place June 6
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settled 629 MoistureLoc(TM) Cases
VAN RU CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action for $2.3 Million
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Removed "Casas" Class Suit to C.D. California
VIRGIN AMERICA: Suits Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages

WAL-MART STORES: Jury Erred in Awarding $3.95MM, 5th Cir. Ruled
WAWONA PACKING: Recalls Sweet 2 Eat Fruits Due to Listeria
WELLINGTON LEATHER: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
YAHOO INC: Court Dismissed Most Claims in E-mail Litigation

* Number of Filings in Pelvic Mesh Litigation Up in Philadelphia


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: FedEx Faces Criminal Case for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: Dad Sues Shell Over Deadly Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak Fibro Claims Not Covered, Insurers Say
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Man Spared Prison in Fibro Fraud Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northey Street Soil Testing Finds Fibro, Lead

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Worker's Widow Sues Over Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Plans to Leave Fibro Remnants in Oregon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Issued After Fly-Tipping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Wrapping Up Cleanup at Stamp Mill Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Workers Ask High Court to Remand Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walney Residents Demand Action Over Fibro Fear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Company Revealed to Have Used Fibro in NSW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Holds Up Renovation at Marietta City Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Pushes for Fibro Education Guide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bures Pensioner Dies from Fibro-Related Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doncaster Family Makes Fibro Death Plea
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sheets Left Dumped on Standon Footpath
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped in North Rocks, Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Extends Bar Date for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asian Countries Continue to Use Fibro Products

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Under Fire Over Botched Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probes Illegal Removal of Fibro in Mich.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Admits Fibro Failings Put Workers at Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Gets New Trial After $2.5MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Hillcrest Public School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Starts Fibro Testing for Former GM Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medical Center Cited for Improper Fibro Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Asks 2nd Cir. for $3.5MM From Reinsurer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit May Belong in Ky., Pa. Court Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Authority Fails Fibro Requirements

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Assessed $19,000 for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blamed for Death of Much Hadham Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Ruling Could Have Pushed Fibro Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family to Demolish Home Ahead of Gov't Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Insulation Checks by NSW Gov't Welcomed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halt to Rebuilt Ordered With Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Discovery Leads to Alert
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Re-opening of Church Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Looks to Eventually Leaving Libby, Montana
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Fires Supervisor of Prison Fibro Program

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Tenants Given Access to Mr. Fluffy Details
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Win Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Involved in Teighnmouth Bldg. Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Concerns at Ausgrid Depot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Naval Service Begins Survey for Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Must Pay After Dumping Hazardous Roofing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Left Homeless After Botched Fibro Job
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Mill Fire Spread Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Plaintiffs Move to Block Access to Data
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roofing Fully Removed From Warehouse

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Owes Crane Co. for $7MM Fibro Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Insulation Co. Beats Bankr. Plan Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Appeals for Information
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Discovered in Dudelange School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Caps Reinsurer's Cost in Fibro Row

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Reports $940-Mil NARCO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Discloses $667-Mil. Bendix Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 8,100 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $815.7MM Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $2.25-Bil. Net Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Incurs $3MM in Settlement Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has 25,000 Active Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $9-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge & Iron Has 1,500 Pending Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,522 Claims as of June 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,500 Pending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. Inks Deal To Resolve Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 14,800 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sale of Armstrong Shares Could Change Ownership

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Housing Auth.'s Suit v. G-I Holdings Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Flips Ruling in Fibro Admin. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Upholds Pneumo Abex Apportionment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Court Flips Ruling in Trespassing Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmates' Suits to Proceed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Pickard" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Flips Ruling in "Galliher" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Recommended in Inmates' Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Robinson" Suit Transferred to Wyoming Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in Benefits Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Ross" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court


                            *********


1229-1273 REALTY: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Tapia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 1229-1273 Realty Inc., Samest Realty Corp., Manny Stein, Dina
Gutfreund, Meir Gutfreund, Jacob Finkelstein, PD Family Credit
Shelter Trust a/k/a PD Family Shelter Trust, SF Family Credit
Shelter Trust a/k/a SF Family Shelter Trust, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06415 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own a portfolio of residential buildings within New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq.
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com


1ST CLASS: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "Whiteman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Whiteman, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. 1st Class Towing, Inc., a Michigan
corporation, Sandy Maring, an individual, and Al Maring, an
individual, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00861 (W.D.
Mich., August 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay proper overtime wages and minimum wage for all
hours of work.

1st Class Towing, Inc. provides towing services with its principal
place of business located at 2813 Cline Rd., Muskegon, Michigan.

Sandy Maring and Al Maring are owners and operators of 1st Class
Towing, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Lee Randolph Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
      One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com


2429 LINCOLN: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. 2429 Lincoln Ave, Inc., d/b/a Pizano's Pizza
& Pasta on Lincoln and Rudy Malnati, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06189 (N.D. Ill., August 12, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

2429 Lincoln Ave, Inc. owns Pizano's Pizza & Pasta on Lincoln
located at 2429 North Lincoln, Chicago, IL 60614.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AK STEEL: No Second Approval of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in September and
October 2008, several companies filed purported class actions in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against nine steel manufacturers, including AK Holding.
The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371,
08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An additional
action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same federal
district court on July 8, 2010.

On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was
filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Illinois. That motion was granted on March 28, 2012.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which
claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers
have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output
and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices
with respect to steel products in the United States. Discovery has
commenced but only with respect to issues relating to class
certification.

On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification. On February 28, 2013, the defendants
filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for class
certification and motions to exclude the opinions of the
plaintiffs' experts.  An evidentiary hearing on the motion for
class certification and the motions to exclude the opinions of the
plaintiffs' experts was held commencing on March 15, 2014. No
trial date has been set.

Prior to that hearing, AK Holding reached an agreement with the
direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims
asserted against AK Holding, subject to certain court approvals
set forth below. Pursuant to that settlement, AK Holding agreed to
pay $5.8 million to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in
exchange for a complete release of all claims from the members of
that class. AK Holding continues to believe that the claims
asserted against it lack any merit, but it elected to enter into
the settlement in order to avoid the ongoing expense of defending
itself in this protracted and expensive antitrust litigation. The
tentative settlement received preliminary approval by the court on
April 11, 2014.

Following such preliminary approval, notice of the proposed
settlement was provided to members of the settlement class. After
receipt of such notice, several class members elected to opt out
of the class settlement.

The Company said, "In order to become final, the settlement must
receive a second approval by the court following a fairness
hearing. No order granting such approval has been issued yet."

The Company recorded a charge during the first quarter of 2014 in
the amount of the tentative settlement with the direct purchaser
plaintiff class. At this stage, the Company does not have adequate
information available to determine that a loss is probable or to
reliably or accurately estimate its potential loss, if any, with
respect to the remaining indirect purchaser plaintiff class
members and any direct purchaser class members that have opted out
of the class (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Remaining Plaintiff Class Members.").

Because the Company has been unable to determine that a potential
loss in this case with respect to the Remaining Plaintiff Class
Members is probable or estimable, it has not recorded an accrual
related to this matter for them. In the event that the Company's
assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this matter is
either probable or estimable with respect to the Remaining
Plaintiff Class Members prove to be incorrect or change in future
periods, the Company may be required to record a charge for their
claims at a later date. Moreover, in the event that the settlement
with the direct purchaser class does not receive final approval
from the court, the settlement with that putative class of
plaintiffs would be void and the parties then would continue to
litigate the direct purchaser claims. Under such circumstances,
the Company would continue to contest this matter vigorously and
the potential liability of the Company in this matter could be
more or less than the amount of the current accrual relating to
the direct purchaser plaintiffs.


AMERICAN DATABANK: Court Did Not Certify Class in "Dunford" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A woman claiming taking aim at American Databank background checks
may pursue her claims but will not represent a class, a federal
judge ruled, according to Courthouse News Service.

The case is Astrailia I. Dunford, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated v. American DataBank, LLC, Case No. 3:13-
cv-03829-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


APPLE INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Hiring Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that revelations have surfaced in a court
filing that the estate of Apple founder Steve Jobs is being sued
by one of the company's shareholders.  The class action lawsuit
claims that Apple misled investors and damaged the value of the
company by striking a controversial hiring agreement with other
corporations.  The action formerly lists the defendants in this
case as being Tim Cook, William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Arthur
Levinson, Robert Iger, Andrea Jung, Fred Anderson and the Estate
of Steven Jobs.

According to court papers, Apple violated the US Securities and
Exchange Act by cutting deals with Google and other firms not to
actively recruit employees away from each other.  The case was
filed by shareholder R Andre Klein on behalf of all Apple
shareholders.

Basic Overview of the Action

This is a shareholder derivative action seeking to remedy the
wrongdoing committed by Apple's senior directors and officers who
have caused millions of dollars in damages to Apple and its
shareholders.  Plaintiff asserts claims under federal law for
violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n(a), and under state law
for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate
waste, and breach of the duty of honest services.

Apple's co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),
Steve Jobs (now deceased), and other Apple executives and
directors entered into unlawful, anti-competitive non-solicitation
agreements with executives at other companies, such as Adobe
Systems ("Adobe"), Google, Inc. ("Google"), and Intel Corporation
("Intel").  Pursuant to these agreements, which violated United
States antitrust laws, the Individual Defendants caused Apple to
agree not to recruit the employees of other companies, and vice
versa.  In an order dated August 8, 2014 in In re High- Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-cv-2509 LHK (N.D. Cal.), the
Honorable Lucy H. Koh rejected a proposed $324.5 million
settlement as inadequate and unfair based in part on the strength
of the evidence against Mr. Jobs.  Devoting five pages of her 32-
page order to discussing the evidence against Mr. Jobs, Judge Koh
identified him as "a, if not the, central figure in the alleged
conspiracy" to engage in anti-poaching practices because "several
witnesses, in their depositions, testified to [Jobs's] role in the
anti-solicitation agreements."

In California, non-compete agreements are generally void and
unenforceable, in addition to potentially violating antitrust
laws.

The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") began
investigating Apple's hiring practices in 2009.  The DOJ filed a
complaint against Apple, Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar
on September 24, 2010, alleging that these companies' private
agreements restrained trade, which was per se unlawful under the
antitrust laws.  The DOJ found the agreements "facially
anticompetitive because they eliminated a significant form of
competition to attract high tech employees, and, overall,
substantially diminished competition to the detriment of the
affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively
important information and access to better job opportunities."
The DOJ stated that the agreements "disrupted the normal price-
setting mechanisms that apply in the labor setting."

The DOJ announced a settlement of the action on its website on
September 24, 2010. (A final judgment in the action was entered on
March 17, 2011.)

Despite the DOJ's investigation, Apple did not disclose to its
shareholders the details of the DOJ's investigation. None of
Apple's proxy statements, quarterly filings, and annual filings
disclosed the DOJ investigation, the settlement reached in
September of 2010, or the final judgment signed on March 17, 2011.
The Company's proxy statements filed on January 11, 2011, January
9, 2012, January 7, 2013, and January 10, 2014 also failed to
disclose the DOJ investigation, settlement, and final judgment.

The complaint before the court is a lengthy 77 pages wherein
Mr. Klein criticized Steve Jobs as being "zealous pursuit of
profits" and that "Jobs's conduct is a reminder that even widely
respected businessmen can knowingly commit unlawful acts in the
zealous pursuit of profits.  Additionally Mr. Klein stated that
"In this case, Jobs and the other individual defendants knowingly
caused Apple to enter into agreements that violated California law
and US antitrust laws."

The Four Counts against Apple

There are four formal Counts against Apple listed in this case:

Count I: Violation of Sec. 14(a) of the Exchange Act against
Defendants Campbell, Cook, Drexler, Iger, Jung, and Levinson.

Count II: Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and Abetting Breach
of Fiduciary Duty against All Individual Defendants

Count III: Gross Mismanagement against All Individual Defendants

Count IV: Waste of Corporate Assets against All Individual
Defendants

The class action case was filed in the California Northern
District Court, San Jose Office.  The Presiding Judge in this case
is noted as being Judge Paul Singh Grewal.  This is a Stockholders
Suit that was originally filed on Aug. 11.


ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: Judge Approves $9-Mil. Class Action Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, Martin Bricketto and Linda Chiem, writing for
Law360, report that a New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 13 signed
off on a $9 million class action settlement resolving securities
claims that senior executives at The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co. Inc. failed to disclose the grocery chain's financial problems
shortly before it went into bankruptcy.

U.S. District Judge William Martini granted preliminary approval
to the settlement that was submitted to the court in May.  Judge
Martini also vacated an order from April dismissing the lawsuit
against A&P.  A final hearing over whether to grant final approval
of the settlement has been scheduled for December.

Plaintiffs attorney Peter S. Pearlman -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- from
Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrman & Knopf LLP said the settlement was
the result of an arm's-length negotiation with A&P's counsel.
With the court's approval, attorneys will now be permitted to
notify members of the class that a settlement has been reached.

"Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel have concluded, after a
thorough investigation of the factual and legal issues in the
litigation, in particular the factual and legal defenses raised by
Defendants regarding loss causation and damages, as well as the
expense and risk of continued litigation, that under the
circumstances the proposed settlement is an excellent result and
is in the best interests of the Class," Mr. Pearlman said in the
motion for preliminary approval.

Shareholders filed the lawsuit in 2011 alleging that A&P officers
disseminated false and misleading statements that deceived
investors about the condition of A&P's business, artificially
inflated the company's stock price and enabled A&P to sell more
than $430 million in debt on more favorable terms.

A&P, based in Montvale, New Jersey, and 53 affiliates filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 2010, burdened by an
increasingly competitive marketplace and a heavy debt load that
shaved away profits as the recession cut into sales.

The complaint, filed on behalf of all those who purchased A&P
stock between July 2009 and December 2010, names current and
former A&P executives Christian W.E. Haub, Eric Claus, Ron
Marshall, Samuel Martin and Brenda Galgano as co-defendants. A&P
itself is not named as a defendant.

A&P emerged from bankruptcy in 2012.

Plaintiffs are represented by Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP and Erin Whitney Boardman --
eboardman@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel Rudman and Robert Rothman of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The defendants are represented by Michael S. Gordon --
michael.gordon@kattenlaw.com -- of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP;
Bradley J. Butwin and Allen W. Burton --
aburton@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP; David Kistenbroker
and Joni Jacobsen of Dechert LLP; Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP; Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP; and Lowenstein Sandler
LLP.

The case is Ricky Dudley v. Christian W.E. Haub et al., 2:11-cv-
05196, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


AVX CORP: Conspired to Fix Prices of Capacitors, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schuten Electronics, Inc., Plaintiff, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AVX Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
03698-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
conspired, combined, or contracted to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the prices of aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors that they sold in the United States in violation of the
Sherman Act.

Capacitors, including aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors, are a fundamental component of electrical circuits
and, hence, capacitors are ubiquitous in electronic devices.
Common electronic devices contain hundreds of capacitors per
device.  The central function of a capacitor is to store an
electrical charge.

AVX Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Fountain Inn, South Carolina.  The Company
is a subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation, a Japanese corporation
that owns approximately 72% of the outstanding common stock in AVX
Corporation.

The Defendants are the largest manufacturers of capacitors in the
world.  The Defendants are AVX Corporation; Elna America Inc.;
Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hitachi Chemical Company America,
Ltd.; Kemet Corporation; Kemet Electronics Corporation; Matsuo
Electric Co., Ltd.; NEC Tokin Corporation; NEC Tokin America,
Inc.; Nichicon Corporation; Nichicon (America) Corporation; Nippon
Chemi-Con Corporation; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; Rohm Co., Ltd.; Rohm Semiconductor
U.S.A., LLC, Rubycon Corporation; Rubycon America Inc.; Elna Co.,
Ltd.; Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd.; Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.)
Corporation; Samsung Electro-Mechanics; Samsung Electro-Mechanics
America, Inc.; Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (Usa) Inc.;
Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd.; United Chemi-Con Corporation; and Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Farah, Esq.
          Matthew Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: gfarah@cohenmilstein.com
                  mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
          Laura Alexander, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500 East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                  lalexander@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Manual John Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILLSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Maher" Suit Included in Gold Futures MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maher, et al. v. Bank of Nova
Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01459, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, is
consolidated with other similar actions for centralization of the
litigation in the District Court.

The antitrust litigation, which is assigned to the Honorable Judge
Valerie E. Caproni, encompasses 18 actions, 17 of which already
are pending in the District Court.  The litigation is captioned In
Re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02548-VEC.

The actions share factual issues arising from largely similar
allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the
prices of gold and gold derivatives through their ownership and
control of the London Gold Market Fixing Ltd.

Plaintiff Kevin Maher is represented by:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  fisquith@lshllp.com

Plaintiff Port 22, LLC is represented by:

          Bryan Lee Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

Plaintiff Richard White is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          David Charles Harrison, Esq.
          Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq.
          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Scott Vincent Papp, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  dharrison@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  pstphillip@lowey.com
                  spapp@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

Plaintiff Peter Denigris is represented by:

          Daniel Hume, Esq.
          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 317-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: dhume@kmllp.com
                  dkovel@kmllp.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Denial of Arbitration in "Nguyen" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperlinked terms of use will not prompt arbitration of claims
against Barnes & Noble over canceled Internet orders, reports
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit
ruling entered on August 18, 2014.

Kevin Nguyen sued Barnes & Noble in 2011 after the bookseller
canceled his order for two HP Touchpads.  The retailer had planned
to sell off the discontinued tablets in an online fire sale but
oversold the items after underestimating consumer response to the
heavy discounts.

After Barnes & Noble successfully removed the putative class
action to federal court, it argued that Nguyen was bound by the
terms of use on its website -- buried under one of many hyperlinks
on each website page -- and moved to compel arbitration.

Nguyen argued that he could not be bound by an arbitration
provision he never saw. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton
agreed and dismissed Barnes & Noble's request.

On August 18, 2014, a three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit in
Pasadena affirmed that no valid arbitration agreement existed
between the parties.  Barnes & Noble's mistake was to use
"browsewrap" rather than "click-through" agreements -- which would
have required Nguyen to actively agree to the terms, according to
the 18-page ruling.

"Were there any evidence in the record that Nguyen had actual
notice of the terms of use or was required to affirmatively
acknowledge the terms of use before completing his online
purchase, the outcome of this case might be different," Judge John
Noonan wrote for the court.  "Indeed, courts have consistently
enforced browsewrap agreements where the user had actual notice of
the agreement. Courts have also been more willing to find the
requisite notice for constructive assent where the browsewrap
agreement resembles a clickwrap agreement -- that is, where the
user is required to affirmatively acknowledge the agreement before
proceeding with use of the website."

In Nguyen's case, however, Barnes and Noble buried its terms of
use under hyperlinks the man never clicked on and was never told
to read.  The panel also rejected the bookseller's contention that
the placement of hyperlinks on every webpage and near buttons used
to make online purchases was sufficient to put Nguyen on notice.

"In light of the lack of controlling authority on point, and in
keeping with courts' traditional reluctance to enforce browsewrap
agreements against individual consumers, we therefore hold that
where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous
hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise provides no
notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to
demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to
relevant buttons users must click on -- without more -- is
insufficient to give rise to constructive notice," Noonan wrote.
"While failure to read a contract before agreeing to its terms
does not relieve a party of its obligations under the contract,
the onus must be on website owners to put users on notice of the
terms to which they wish to bind consumers.  Given the breadth of
the range of technological savvy of online purchasers, consumers
cannot be expected to ferret out hyperlinks to terms and
conditions to which they have no reason to suspect they will be
bound."

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (888) 811-3615
          Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
          E-mail: gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com
                  lacounsel@earthlink.net

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
          Leo P. Norton, Esq.
          Erin E. Goodsell, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: doolinmc@cooley.com
                  lnorton@cooley.com
                  egoodsell@cooley.com

The appellate case is Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. Barnes & Noble Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 12-56628, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
District Court case is Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble
Inc., Case No. 8:12-cv-00812-JST-RNB, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.


BAYER HEALTH CARE: Plaintiffs' Mirena IUD MDL Bid Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals Inc. won't be
facing consolidated federal litigation over its Mirena
intrauterine device, a long-term method of birth control.

Consolidating litigation in which plaintiffs allege the Mirena
IUDs caused abnormal elevation of cerebrospinal fluid in their
skulls could have some benefit, but there are not enough cases to
justify centralizing cases for pretrial purposes, wrote John G.
Heyburn II, chairman of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

The cases so far were filed by only one plaintiffs firm, Jones
Ward in Louisville, Ky.  "Given the few involved counsel and
limited number of actions, informal cooperation among the involved
attorneys is both practical and preferable to centralization," the
panel said.

The plaintiffs, whose request for a MDL was rejected, allege that
the elevation of cerebrospinal fluid in their skulls resulted in a
neurological condition known as idiopathic intracranial
hypertension.  They say the condition left them with headaches and
vision problems.

Another federal multidistrict litigation was formed regarding
allegations that the IUDs caused uterine perforation or moved out
of place within plaintiffs' bodies.  But that litigation started
off with close to 50 cases filed in 18 districts, the panel said.
If an MDL had been formed, Bayer wanted the cases to be
centralized in the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs,
however, had wanted the nine cases to be consolidated in the
Northern District of Alabama or the Western District of Kentucky.


BLYTH INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Dismissal of Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blyth, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that "We, certain of our
officers, ViSalus, one of its founders and others were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in federal district
court in Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
during the period March to November 2012. On March 31, 2014, the
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint and entered judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs did
not appeal the judgment."

Blyth, Inc. is a multi-channel company focused on the direct to
consumer market. The Company's products include an extensive array
of decorative and functional household products such as candles,
accessories, seasonal decorations, household convenience items and
personalized gifts, as well as meal replacement shakes,
nutritional supplements, functional foods, energy drink mixes and
health, wellness and beauty related products. The Company's
products can be found throughout the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Europe and Australia.  Its financial results are reported
in three segments: the Candles & Home Decor segment (PartyLite),
the Health & Wellness segment (ViSalus), and the Catalog &
Internet segment (Silver Star Brands).


BLYTH INC: Former ViSalus Promoters File Putative Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blyth, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 9, 2014, "three
former ViSalus promoters filed a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against
ViSalus, Robert B. Goergen (our Chairman of the Board), the three
founders of ViSalus (Nick Sarnicola, Ryan Blair and Blake Mallen),
Todd A. Goergen (ViSalus's Chief Operating Officer), several of
ViSalus's promoters (along with certain of their affiliates), and
FragMob and iCentris (two service vendors to ViSalus). The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes, the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act and Franchise Investment Law, have been
unjustly enriched, and have engaged in statutory and/or common law
conversion and civil conspiracy. They allege that the amount lost
by the putative class has not yet been determined but is alleged
to be over $100 million. The plaintiffs are seeking certification
of the class, a judgment against the defendants, monetary damages
(and that such amount be trebled in accordance with the RICO
statutes), injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
operating an alleged pyramid scheme, imposition of a constructive
trust for plaintiffs' benefit, disgorgement of all proceeds of the
alleged pyramid scheme by each defendant, an accounting to make
plaintiffs whole or to the extent they are otherwise entitled to
such relief, relief (including damages and rescission of any
contract made with ViSalus) under the Michigan Franchise
Disclosure Act, the costs of investigation and litigation
(including attorneys' fees) and such other damages, relief and
pre- and post-judgment interest as the court may deem just and
proper."

The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves against this
action.

Blyth, Inc. is a multi-channel company focused on the direct to
consumer market. The Company's products include an extensive array
of decorative and functional household products such as candles,
accessories, seasonal decorations, household convenience items and
personalized gifts, as well as meal replacement shakes,
nutritional supplements, functional foods, energy drink mixes and
health, wellness and beauty related products. The Company's
products can be found throughout the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Europe and Australia.  Its financial results are reported
in three segments: the Candles & Home Decor segment (PartyLite),
the Health & Wellness segment (ViSalus), and the Catalog &
Internet segment (Silver Star Brands).


BP PLC: Ontario Shareholders Can't Sue Over 2010 Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Ontario
shareholders who bought stock in BP PLC on the New York Stock
Exchange should not be able to sue the British oil giant over its
massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Ontario Court of
Appeal has ruled.

BP still faces massive litigation in the United States over the
catastrophic spill, including a class action launched by U.S.
shareholders alleging the company misled them about the severity
of the disaster.

But a similar proposed class action launched in Ontario on behalf
of BP shareholders has received attention mostly from other
lawyers curious about whether Ontario courts would allow a
securities case involving a purchase on a foreign stock exchange,
and against a foreign company, to proceed.

A lower court judge had previously ruled that the case could go
ahead.  But in a ruling released on Aug. 14, the Court of Appeal
overturned that decision.  Both courts agreed that Ontario
technically has jurisdiction over the case.  But the Court of
Appeal sided with lawyers for BP, who argued that Ontario was not
the appropriate venue for the court battle, since shareholders
here can already take part in the U.S. class action.

Bay Street lawyers who defend corporations against shareholder
class actions had expressed concern that extended the jurisdiction
of Canadian courts over cases involving foreign firms and foreign
stock exchanges could turn the country into an "overflow
jurisdiction" for cases rejected elsewhere.

That concern intensified after a 2010 ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court, called Morrison v. Australia Bank Limited, ruled out future
securities class actions involving a stock exchange outside the
United States.

Canadian courts have generally been much less ready than their
U.S. counterparts to stretch jurisdiction.  However, this kind of
decision usually hinges on the facts of each case.  In 2012, in a
proposed class-action against Kitchener, Ont.-based Canadian Solar
Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Ontario shareholders
who bought stock on the U.S.-based Nasdaq could sue the company in
Ontario.

In May, the U.S. shareholder class-action lawsuit against BP over
the Gulf of Mexico spill won certification, or a green light to
proceed, from a federal judge in Houston.

BP shares, which are listed on the London and Frankfurt exchanges,
trade on the NYSE in the form of "American depository shares,"
which are foreign shares denominated in U.S. dollars.  This kind
of BP share also briefly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, but
was delisted in 2008 due to low volume.  BP concedes that Ontario
shareholders who bought stock on the TSX would be able to launch
their own case.

Lawyers for the plaintiff in the case could not be reached.
Lawyer Larry Lowenstein -- llowenstein@osler.com -- of Osler
Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, who acted for BP in the case, said the
appeal ruling sends the message that courts here are not going to
allow securities class actions that would only duplicate or
interfere with cases elsewhere.

"The whole gravitational force of the litigation is in the United
States," Mr. Lowenstein said.  "And [the Canadian case] is very
much a Johnny-come-lately."


BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Decking Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Stidham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a/ Gaf
Materials Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00247 (S.D. Ind., August
12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
disclose to Plaintiff and the Class Members that there is an
inherent defect in the Cross Timbers Decking.

Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer of
residential exterior building products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Joseph Morse, Esq.
      MORSE LAW FIRM PC
      320 North Meridian Street, Suite 506
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 686-1540
      Facsimile: (317) 686-1541
      E-mail: morse@morsebickel.com


BUTCHERY QUALITY: Has Misrepresented "Prime" Beef, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Shanklin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Butchery Quality Meats; Robert Hagopian; Brian
Smith; TMH SC LLC; The Meat House - Mission Viejo, LLC; Meat House
Franchising, LLC; and Does 1 through 300, inclusive, Case No. 30-
2014-00739871-CU-FR-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., August 14,
2014) accuses the Defendants of blatantly misrepresenting beef
products sold at their stores as Prime-grade.

Mr. Shanklin alleges that the Defendants purchased meat and
poultry products at nearby grocery stores and, then, sold them to
unsuspecting consumers as high-priced custom cuts.  He adds that
the Defendants purchased "Choice" beef from suppliers and then
labeled and sold it in their stores as "Prime" beef.

The Butchery Quality Meats is a business entity transacting
business within Orange County, California, through its marketing,
advertising, and sale of food products, including Meat products.
Meat House Franchising, LLC, is a New Hampshire limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Portsmouth,
New Hampshire.  During the relevant time period, Meat House
conducted business throughout the United States, including the
state of California.  Meat House operates corporate-owned stores
and franchises stores, authorizing franchisees to bear its trade
name and use its operational support system in exchange for cash
consideration.

TMH SC LLC is a California limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Mission Viejo, California.  Within
the relevant time period, TMH owned or operated retail stores
under the trade name The Meat House or The Butchery Quality Meats.
The Meat House - Mission Viejo, LLC is a California limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Mission
Viejo, California.  Within the relevant time period, The Meat
House - Mission Viejo, LLC owned or operated retail stores under
the trade name The Meat House or The Butchery Quality Meats.

The Individual Defendants are owners and operators of the
Corporate Defendants.  The true names or capacities of Doe
Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald S. Ohn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S. OHN, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-8655
          Facsimile: (310) 694-3049
          E-mail: gerald@ohnlaw.com

               - and -

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          400 W. Lambert Road, Suite C
          Brea, CA 92821
          Telephone: (714) 494-6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406-0658
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com


CAFE #25: "Mendoza" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Mendoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Cafe #25, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Cafe and Youg M. Chong, Case No.
1:14-cv-06401 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Cafe #25, Inc. is a food/beverage establishment located at 1123
Broadway, New York, NY 10010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Ave, Ste 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
      E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


CAVALRY SPV: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Georgia Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Smith, individually and as Class Representative for all
others similarly situated v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and Frederick J.
Hanna & Associates, P.C., Case No. 3:14-cv-00130-TCB-RGV (N.D.
Ga., August 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ, LLC
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 350-5900
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


CITIGROUP INC: Files Bid to Dismiss in "Larsen" v. Barclays
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 30, 2014,
plaintiff in the putative class action LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK
PLC, ET AL. filed an amended complaint.  On May 30, 2014,
Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved
to dismiss that action, as well as the putative class actions that
are proceeding on a consolidated basis under the caption IN RE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION and the
putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC,
ET AL.  Additional information concerning these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:14-
cv-1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Schofield, J.) and 1:13-cv-7953 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Provides Update on Interbank Offered Rates Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on
Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters
Antitrust and Other Litigation.

On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an opinion in IN RE LIBOR-
BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (LIBOR MDL), (i)
granting a motion by the putative class of purchasers of exchange-
traded derivative instruments for leave to amend their complaint;
(ii) denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration of
portions of the court's March 29, 2013 order; (iii) granting
defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on contracts purchased
between May 2008 and April 2009; and (iv) denying the motion by
Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., and certain other defendants to dismiss
unjust enrichment and contract-based claims of the putative class
of OTC purchasers of derivative instruments. Additional
information concerning this consolidated action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:11-md-2262
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a
petition for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORP., ET AL. with respect to the dismissal by the Second
Circuit of an appeal by the plaintiff class of indirect OTC
purchasers of U.S. debt securities. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings
under the docket numbers 13-3565 (2d Cir.), 13-3636 (2d Cir.), and
13-1174 (U.S.).

On May 19, 2014, Prudential Investment Portfolios filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Funding Inc. and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as well as other USD LIBOR panel
banks, seeking to recover losses as a result of purported LIBOR
manipulation. Plaintiff asserts federal antitrust and RICO claims,
as well as various common law claims. On June 11, 2014, this
action was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York for consolidation in the LIBOR MDL.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available under the docket number 1:14-cv-04189 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.).

On June 17, 2014, plaintiff in the putative class action LAYDON v.
MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. filed a motion for leave to amend the
second amended complaint and a proposed third amended complaint.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:12-cv-3419
(S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v.
BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL. filed a second amended complaint naming
Citigroup and Citibank, N.A. as defendants. Plaintiffs claim to
have suffered losses as a result of purported EURIBOR manipulation
and assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman
Act and RICO, and for unjust enrichment. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings
under the docket number 1:13-cv-2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Provides Updates on Interchange Fees Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on
Interchange Fees Litigation.

On July 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied defendants', including Citigroup's,
motions to dismiss complaints filed by opt-out merchants in IN RE
PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST
LITIGTATION. Two of the opt-out suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v.
VISA INC., ET AL. and SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LLC, ET AL. v. VISA
INC., ET AL. name Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information
concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings
under the docket numbers 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.); 13-
cv-4442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.), and 13-10-75377A (Tex. Dist.
Ct.).


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Awaits Finalization of Accord in Suit v. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Royalties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., is a defendant in a suit filed in
April 2011 in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas where
the plaintiffs are suing for the costs of environmental
remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced in the
1930s. The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $8 million. In June
2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining defendants agreed to a
settlement of $0.8 million, of which SWR would pay $0.7 million.
To accomplish the settlement, the case would be converted to a
class action, and each member of the class would be offered the
right to either participate or opt out of the class and continue a
separate action for damages. If more than 25% of the plaintiffs
were to opt out of the settlement, SWR would have the right to
terminate the settlement. Any plaintiffs opting out would be
subject to all previous rulings of the court, including an order
dismissing a significant number of the plaintiffs' claims on the
basis that such claims were time barred. SWR believes that the
judge will approve the settlement and the number of the plaintiffs
opting out of the settlement, if any, will be insignificant.

"We recorded a loss on settlement of $0.7 million in June 2013 in
connection with this proposed settlement. We are now awaiting
finalization of the settlement by the court," Clayton Williams
Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is an
independent oil and gas company engaged in the exploration for and
development and production of oil and natural gas primarily in its
core areas in Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico.


CRYSTAL WINDOW: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Ramirez, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Crystal Window & Door Systems, Ltd. and Thomas
Chen, Case No. 1:14-cv-04810 (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid commission, back pay and punitive damages due to
Defendants' retaliatory behavior, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Crystal Window & Door Systems, Ltd. and Thomas Chen operate a
window manufacturing company with its corporate headquarters in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Settlement Reached in Wage and Hour Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. in the Superior
Court of California. The Company was served with the complaint in
this lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that
time. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company failed
to provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of
providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed
to comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements.

In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January
2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on
some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for
clarification of its decision on one of the claims.

The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement
has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material
to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the remaining claims
is not anticipated to be material to the Company's consolidated
financial statements, Davita Healthcare said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2014, for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014.

Davita Healthcare operates two major divisions, Kidney Care and
HealthCare Partners (HCP).  Its Kidney Care division is comprised
of U.S. dialysis and related lab services business, ancillary
services and strategic initiatives including its international
operations, and its corporate support expenses.  The HCP division
is comprised of the HCP business.


DEBT FREE: Faces "Perri" Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Perri, on behalf of himself and of all others similarly
situated v. Debt Free Associates dba Rescue One Financial, a
California Limited Liability, and Does 1 to 10,  Case No. 8:14-cv-
01305-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2014) alleges violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Soo-Hoo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN J. SOO-HOO APC
          601 Park Center Drive, Suite 105
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 589-2252
          Facsimile: (714) 589-2254
          E-mail: soohoolaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          ARBOGAST LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          11400 W Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0416
          E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com

               - and -

          Gregory H.D. Alumit, Esq.
          Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD LAW PC
          675 Anton Boulevard, 1st Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 872-5925
          Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
          E-mail: gregory.alumit@howardlawpc.com
                  vhoward@howardlawpc.com


EAGLE RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Perez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benigno Perez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Eagle Recycling, LLC, Jorge L. Velazquez, and Jorge A.
Velazquez, Case No. 1:14-cv-22959 (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for worked performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Eagle Recycling, LLC is a processing facility and mill supplier
for recyclable materials primarily including: cardboard, office
paper, plastics and electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell
      J.H. Zidell, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Falsely Advertised Products, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., a Florida corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22950 (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2014), alleges falsely
advertised SofTest as reliable and as a means of lessening, rather
than increasing, the stress associated taking with bar exams.

Examsoft Worldwide, Inc. is a software company with its principal
place of business located at 6400 Congress Avenue, Suite
1050, Boca Raton, Florida 33487.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tamra Carsten Givens, Esq.
      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: tgivens@forthepeople.com
              JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com


EXXON MOBIL: Class Action Over 2013 Oil Spill Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that class action status has been
granted in a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil stemming from a 2013
pipeline accident in Mayflower.

U.S. District Judge Brian Miller in Little Rock ruled in favor of
Arnez and Charletha Harper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
reported.  The pair can represent people who currently own
property that is subject to an easement for and physically crossed
by Exxon's Pegasus pipeline, which runs from Texas to Illinois.
They want the easement canceled or the pipeline removed or
replaced.

Exxon's pipeline ruptured last year, spilling about 210,000
gallons of oil in a neighborhood in Mayflower, about 30 miles
northwest of Little Rock.

The Harpers' attorney, Phillip Duncan, declined to discuss the
case's details but said there are numerous people with property
along the pipeline.

Exxon Mobil had argued against class-action status, claiming the
plaintiffs' efforts were an attempt to "usurp the exclusive
authority of the federal government to regulate interstate
pipelines," according to the ruling.

Company spokesman Christian Flathman said officials are reviewing
the judge's decision and considering their options, which include
the possibility of an appeal.

The judge noted in his ruling that the Harpers' property was not
damaged by the oil spill.

The judge found the other two plaintiffs could not represent the
class action since the pipeline doesn't cross their property.
Duncan said their Mayflower property was "within probably inches"
of the pipeline.

Exxon Mobil shut off the entire pipeline after the Mayflower oil
spill, but has recently opened a section in Texas.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Removed "Gunn" Class Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Gunn v. Family Dollar Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00016348-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District
of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-01916-GPC-BGS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geniene B. Stillwell, Esq.
          STILLWELL LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          384 Forest Avenue, Suite 23B
          Laguna Beach, CA 92651
          Telephone: (949) 494-4744
          Facsimile: (949) 474-4734
          E-mail: gstillwell@stillwelllawoffice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory W. Knopp, 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: gknopp@akingump.com


FISHLEGS LLC: "Kaba" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibrahima Kaba, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Fishlegs LLC, Gioco Restaurant Corp., David Burke 59 Corp., 6
Grand LLC, David Burke and Chris "Doe", Case No. 1:14-cv-06428
(S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants operate a food services enterprise known as David
Burke Group, including four restaurants under the trade names
Fishtail, David Burke Townhouse, David Burke at Bloomingdale's and
David Burke Kitchen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOOT RELAXING: Faces "Ren" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Min Ren, Yu Wu Li, Cui Hu and Hong Mei Wang, on behalf of
themselves and FLSA Collective v. Foot Relaxing Station, Inc., Jie
Tian, and Ming Wu Wang, Case No. 1:14-cv-04807 (E.D.N.Y., August
13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Foot Relaxing Station, Inc. is a massage store located at 250-60
Jericho Tpke, Floral Park, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


FREDERICK HANNA: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Chownwai and Pam Chownwai, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Frederick J Hanna & Associates,
P.C., a foreign professional association, and National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2005-3, a Delaware Statutory Trust, Case No.
6:14-cv-01313-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          N. JAMES TURNER, LLC
          37 N Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


FRITO-LAY: Labeling Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class must amend claims
about Frito-Lay labeling that describes the products as low-fat,
fat-free or all-natural, a federal judge ruled on August 12, 2014.

The case is Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North
America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03988-SC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


GENERAL CABLE: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Livonia Action
----------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that two civil complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by
named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities, against the Company, Gregory Kenny, the President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, the Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer.

General Cable said, "On the Company's motion, the complaints were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, the actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated complaint was filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by
City of Livonia Employees Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on
behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who
purchased our securities between November 3, 2010 and October 14,
2013 ("the City of Livonia Compliant"). The City of Livonia
Complaint alleges claims under the antifraud and controlling
person liability provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, alleging generally, among other assertions, that the Company
employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that
resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition,
understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income
and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost
through theft; that the Company issued materially false financial
results that had to be restated on two occasions; and that
statements of Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and
found effective the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting and disclosure were false.  The City of Livonia
Complaint alleges that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
stock price was artificially inflated and the plaintiffs suffered
damages in connection with their purchase of the Company's stock.
The City of Livonia Complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and
experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other relief as the
Court deems just and proper."

In addition, a derivative complaint was filed on January 7, 2014
in the Campbell County, Kentucky Circuit Court against all but one
member of the Company's Board of Directors, including Mr. Kenny,
two former directors and against Mr. Robinson and two former ROW
officials, one of whom is a former executive officer. The
derivative complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by knowingly failing to ensure that the Company
implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over the
Company's accounting and financial reporting functions and by
knowingly disseminating to stockholders materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial results
and internal controls. The derivative complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, attorney's fees, experts' fees
and other costs.

On March 5, 2014, the derivative case was placed on inactive
status until a motion is filed by a party to reinstate the action
to the Court's active docket.

On July 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City of
Livonia Complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.

The Company believes the City of Livonia Complaint and the
derivative complaint, insofar as it relates to the Company's
directors and Mr. Robinson, are without merit and intend to
vigorously contest the actions.

The Company is a global leader in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.


GOV'T EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Cilmi-Smith, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Government Employees Insurance Company, d/b/a Geico, a
Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of New York, Case
No. 1:14-cv-06398 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to properly pay overtime compensation
due for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

Government Employees Insurance Company offers private passenger
automobile insurance to individuals in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Markham, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, OSTROFF & MARKHAM
      1420 Kettner Boulevard, 7th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101-2431
      Telephone: (619) 239-1111

         - and -

      Laurence David King, Esq.
      Linda M. Fong. Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
              lfong@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com


HANOVER INSURANCE: Motion to Alter or Amend Court Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff
claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of
similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional
so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an
estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum
distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the Company and the
Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the
additional claims set forth in (a) and (b) above, however, in
response to a motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed the
new breach of fiduciary duty claim to stand, but only as to
plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case.

On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Partial Motion
for Summary Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw" claim of one of the
named plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after
December 31, 2003.

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice
the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the
putative class members he sought to represent.

On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a
class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty
claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum
distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a
subclass to bring such claims consisting of all persons who
received lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March
12, 2002.

On December 17, 2013, the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion
for entry of a final order allowing an immediate appeal by the two
named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed
claims that the 2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation
of ERISA, and for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum
distribution should have been greater.

On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable
or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims
remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on
April 30, 2014, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The extent to which any of the
plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability. The statute of limitations
applicable to the class has not yet been finally determined and
the extent of potential liability, if any, will depend on this
final determination. In addition, assuming for these purposes that
the plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims that benefits
accrued or payable under the Plan were understated, then there are
numerous possible theories and other variables upon which any
revised calculation of benefits as requested under plaintiffs'
claims could be based. Any adverse judgment in this case against
the Plan would be expected to create a liability for the Plan,
with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay
benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan could
also be impacted by such a liability.


HELEN OH: "Vivar" Suit  Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virgino "Javier" Vivar, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Helen Oh d/b/a 103 Grocery & Vegetable Fruit, Case No.
1:14-cv-06400 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Helen Oh owns and operates a food/beverage establishment called
103 Grocery & Vegetable Fruit located at 2705 Broadway, New York,
NY 10025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Ave, Ste 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
      E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


HOT SPOT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Ramirez, Hermilo Sosa, and Miguel Juarez, on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated, known and unknown
v. The Hot Spot Car Wash Inc., Image Car Wash Inc., and Simon
Cruz, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06203 (N.D. Ill., August 12,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate two car washes in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


HSBC CARD: "Fanning" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Fanning, et al. v. HSBC Card
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-mc-00009, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01300-DOC-AN to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dana Duane McDaniel, Esq.
          John Michael Erbach, Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN PC
          411 E Franklin St., Suite 600
          PO Box 1555
          Richmond, VA 23218-1555
          Telephone: (804) 697-2065
          Facsimile: (804) 697-2165
          E-mail: dmcdaniel@spottsfain.com
                  jerbach@spottsfain.com

               - and -

          Stephen Chamberlain Maxwell, Esq.
          BAILEY & GALYEN PC
          1300 Summit, Suite 650
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 471-1242
          Facsimile: (817) 719-9484

Movant Capital One Financial Corporation is represented by:

          Bryan Alan Fratkin, Esq.
          Allison Perry Monger, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          One James Center
          901 E Cary St.
          Richmond, VA 23219-4030
          Telephone: (804) 775-4352
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2100
          E-mail: bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com
                  amonger@mcguirewoods.com


J.A. WEITZMAN: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marla Morales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-
situated v. J.A. Weitzman, Inc., d/b/a W&W Manufacturing Company,
and Jeffrey A. Weitzman and Murlel Weitzman, both in their
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-04803
(E.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

J.A. Weitzman, Inc. is a manufacturer of radio communication
batteries, automobile parts and other related equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter John Andrews, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Ste 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: pja@employmentlawyernewyork.com


JAYCO: Recalls 90 Seneca Class C Motorhomes Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           90
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014324
TC ID number:             2014324

On certain motorhomes, components in the entry keypad (located in
the entrance door) may corrode.  This could result in an
electrical short, increasing the risk of a fire causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will add a 5 amp fuse to protect the circuit.  A repair
for the keypad is still under development.

Affected products: 2014, 2015 Jayco Seneca Class C Motorhome


JAYCO: Recalls 51 White Hawk Travel Trailers Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           51
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014325
TC ID number:             2014325

On certain travel trailers, frame outriggers may contact the tires
during tight turns.  This could damage the tires, potentially
causing rapid air loss and/or tire failure, which could affect
vehicle handling and increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or property damage.

Dealers will inspect outriggers and modify if necessary.

Affected products: 2014, 2015 Jayco White Hawk Travel Trailer


JDR MANUFACTURING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yajaira C. Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. JDR Manufacturing, Inc. and
Veronica Perez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06230 (N.D. Ill.,
August 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

JDR Manufacturing, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JMS BUILDING: Faces "Villalolos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Villalobos, Sergio Roman a.k.a. Theodoro Madregal,
Ramon Gonzalez, Hugo Esqueda, and those similarly situated v.
JMS Building, Jason Mark Smith, Loren Becker, Continental
Constructors LLC, Haselden Construction, LLC, and Federal
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-02253 (D. Colo., August 13,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company based in
Glenwood Springs, Colorado that specializes in commercial and
institutional construction throughout the state of Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Scubapro Aladin2
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 5, 2014
Posting date:             August 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40901

Affected products: Scubapro Aladin2 dive computers, commonly
referred to as Aladin Square dive computers

The recall involves the Aladin2 wrist dive computer that monitors
depth, dive time, decompression status and temperature.  The
computer is rectangular, black, and mounted on a black wristband.
On the face of the product, the brand name SCUBAPRO appears in
black and the model name Aladin Square appears in white.  The
serial number is stamped in white on the back of the product.

The outer packages of the units have a label on the back which
states "Aladin 2 wrist metric" and the serial number.  The label
on the side of the package repeats the name and the serial number
of the product, along with a UPC of 048336113823.

The recall is isolated to computers with serial numbers ending in
003.

The dive computer can leak and stop working, posing a risk of
injury due to decompression sickness.

The company received four reports that the dive computers leaked
and stopped working.  No injuries were reported.  No incidents
were reported from Canada.

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

A total 41 recalled products were sold in Canada.

Approximately 350 of the recalled products were sold in the United
States.

In Canada, the recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia
and sold from March 2013 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Johnson Outdoors Diving Inc.
                     El Cajon
                     California
                     United States

   Distributor       Shark Bite Distribution
                     Mallorytown
                     Ontario
                     Canada

Consumers in Canada should immediately stop using the dive
computers and return them to an authorized SCUBAPRO dealer or
contact Shark Bite Distribution at 1-866-691-2197 Monday to Friday
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET for a free replacement.


JP MORGAN: Chase Bank Settles Illinois TCPA Suit for $34 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner and Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360, report that
Chase Bank USA will pay $34 million to settle a class action
alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing calls to consumers' cellphones without consent, according
to documents filed in Illinois federal court on Aug. 12.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman preliminarily approved a
settlement, under which each class member will receive between $20
and $40, to settle the litigation alleging Chase and JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA placed calls and sent texts or voice alerts to
consumers' cellphones through automatic dialers.

"The settlement agreement substantially fulfills the purposes and
objectives of the class action, and provides substantial relief to
the settlement class," the order said.

The settlement class is broken down into two subclasses, the alert
call subclass consisting of plaintiffs who received text messages
or voice alerts and the collection call subclass consisting of
plaintiffs who received calls, according to the order.  The
agreement comes after more than two years of "hard-fought"
litigation in the case, which consists of three consolidated
actions, according to the plaintiffs' motion for approval of the
settlement.

Chase and JP Morgan continue to deny the allegations and any
liability, the motion said.  JP Morgan also argues that its
customers are subject to an arbitration clause, which includes a
class action waiver.

"At every turn, Chase has vigorously defended this case," the
motion said.  "If approved, the settlement would bring a sure end
to what otherwise has been, and likely would continue to be,
contentious and costly litigation centered on the question of
Chase's liability for the allegedly unlawful calls and texts
challenged in this action."

This is not the first time JP Morgan has settled TCPA litigation
alleging it made automated calls without consent.  In January
2012, it agreed to pay between $7 million and $9 million to settle
two proposed class actions claiming it illegally made automated
calls to residential loan holders' cellphones without consent.

Under the deal as agreed in 2012, the company would set up a
settlement fund that would be used to dole out between $25 and
$500 to proposed class members, up to $3 million to proposed class
counsel and $5,000 to the two proposed class representatives.

Plaintiffs are represented by Beth E. Terrell and Michael D. Daudt
-- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC,
Mark D. Ankcorn of Ankcorn Law Firm PC, Syed Ali Saeed of Saeed &
Little LLP and Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC.

Chase is represented by Julia B Strickland, Julieta Stepanyan and
Arjun Patibandla Rao of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Kenneth M.
Kliebard and Tedd Macrae Warden -- twarden@morganlewis.com -- of
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and Michael Yale Scudder Jr. and Lara
A. Flath -- lara.flath@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP.

The case is Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA NA, case number 1:12-cv-
05510, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


KEMET CORPORATION: Defendant in Suit Against Capacitor Makers
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 18, 2014, a
purported antitrust class action complaint (the "Chip-Tech
Complaint"), Chip-Tech, Ltd., v. Panasonic Corporation, et. al.,
was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California. On July 22, 2014, a second purported antitrust
class action complaint (the "Dependable Component Complaint" and,
together with the Chip-Tech Complaint, the "Complaints"),
Dependable Component Supply Corp. v. Panasonic Corporation, et.
al., was also filed in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California by the same law firm that filed the Chip-
Tech Complaint. KEMET Corporation and KEMET Electronics
Corporation were named as defendants, along with 26 other
capacitor manufacturers in both Complaints. The Complaints allege
collusion and restraint of trade by the defendants in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Company has not recorded an
accrual concerning these Complaints.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors.
Capacitors are fundamental components of most electronic circuits
and are found in communication systems, data processing equipment,
personal computers, cellular phones, automotive electronic
systems, defense and aerospace systems, consumer electronics,
power management systems and many other electronic devices and
systems.


KROGER CO: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over "Simple Truth" Chickens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kroger deceptively labels its "Simple Truth" chickens as having
been raised more humanely than other chickens, customers claim in
a class action in Hamilton County Court, according to Courthouse
News Service.


L'OREAL USA: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Model's Image Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that a
New York judge on Aug. 14 dismissed L'Oreal USA Inc., Procter &
Gamble Co.'s owner and several advertising agencies from a
proposed class action alleging models were cheated out of money
for the repeated use of their photos, but allowed the claims to
proceed against several modeling agencies.

Judge O. Peter Sherwood ruled that the models hadn't supported
their breach of contract claims against L'Oreal, P&G Clairol Inc.
and advertising agencies such as McCann-Erickson USA Inc. and
Saatchi & Saatchi North America Inc.  However, the judge also
found that the plaintiffs had adequately pled their contract
breach allegations against modeling agencies including Wilhelmina
Models Inc. and Next Management LLC.

The Aug. 14 decision and order addressed 10 motions to dismiss and
a handful of other motions.

The models filed suit in New York Supreme Court in October,
alleging the modeling agencies they had contracts with had
collected checks from advertising agencies and companies that used
the models' likenesses on products such as hair color boxes and in
television commercials, but hadn't paid the models for that work.

In the Aug. 14 ruling, Judge Sherwood said that various plaintiffs
had clearly alleged that several of the modeling agency defendants
breached their contractual obligations to pay the models for uses
of their images.  The complaint also sufficiently pled that the
models performed under their contracts by providing their images,
the judge wrote.

Judge Sherwood agreed to dismiss the suit as to modeling agencies
Ford Models Inc. and Que Management Inc., citing lack of evidence
that those defendants improperly withheld payments from models.

The complaint failed to adequately allege breach of contract by
the advertising agencies or clients L'Oreal and P&G, according to
the order.

The plaintiffs claim that the contracts between the advertising
and modeling agencies provide that any payment made to the
modeling agencies "is made on behalf of the models, who are the
intended beneficiaries of the contracts," according to the order.
But the models don't qualify as intended beneficiaries under New
York law, and they further failed to claim that no one other than
the models can recover for the advertising agencies' alleged
breaches, Judge Sherwood wrote.

The plaintiffs didn't cite a single contract that wasn't paid by
the advertising agencies, L'Oreal or P&G, the judge said.

According to the suit, photos of the respective models were used
in advertisements for products such as toothpaste, hair color and
tequila in the U.S. and abroad, but the models were never informed
of this by their agencies.  They are seeking payment for use of
their images.

In one instance, named plaintiff Louisa Raske said she was in a
CVS drugstore in Miami in June 2012 when she spotted her face on
L'Oreal hair color boxes. She had signed a contract with Next
Management's Miami and New York offices in 1997, when she was 16,
according to the suit.  The agency later dropped her but had
apparently continued to sell her images to companies, Ms. Raske
alleges.

Ms. Raske says in the complaint that the agency tried to avoid her
when she asked for a billing statement accounting for the use of
her image.  She turned instead to advertising agency McCann
Erickson Corp., which she remembered having worked with during the
booking for the boxes, she says.

McCann provided her with an accounting of how much they'd spent
for the use of her image, which Ms. Raske then took to Next,
according to the suit. Next paid her $31,000 to match what McCann
had told her but refused to provide her with an independent
accounting of what it had earned off her image without paying her,
according to the Aug. 14 complaint.

The models are represented by Mark E. Seitelman and S. Skip Taylor
of Mark E. Seitelman Law Offices PC.

The defendants are represented by Dunnington Bartholow & Miller
LLP, Reed Smith LLP, Davis & Gilbert LLP, Arent Fox LLP, Capell
Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP, Ken Maguire & Associates PLLC,
Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan
LLP, Sandor Frankel PC, and Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP.

The case is Shanklin et al. v. Wilhelmina Models Inc. et al., case
number 653702/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.


LA FROMAGERIE: Recalls Hamel French Cheeses Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated 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:    9139

The food recall warning issued on July 28, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

La Fromagerie Hamel is recalling La fromagerie Hamel brand French
cheeses from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O26:H11
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
products.

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 these products.

The recall was triggered by a recall in another country.  The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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


LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Lea Night Stands Due to Scorching
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 7, 2014
Posting date:             August 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-39713

Affected products: Lea Night Stands

The recall involves Lea Willow Run and Americana Night stands as
follows:

The 20-watt halogen night lamp on the bottom of the night stand
can generate sufficient heat to scorch the carpet underneath it.

Lea has received one report from Canada of the light scorching the
carpet under the night stand.

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

Approximately 20 units were sold in Canada at various retailers.
Approximately 479 units were sold in the United States at various
retailers.

The affected products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold in
Canada and the United States from March 2013 to April 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Shingmark Enterprises Co. Ltd.
                    Trang Bom District
                    Taiwan
                    Province of China

   Distributor      Lea Industries
                    High Point
                    North Carolina
                    United States

Consumers should immediately unplug the night stand and not use
the light until it is repaired.  Consumers may contact Lea
Furniture at 1-888-770-7116 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET (Monday
to Friday) or via the Lea Lazboy's website, for more information
and to arrange for the repair.


LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Sensations Italian Sausage Jumbo Tortelloni
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Labelling
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments O Sole Mio Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9140

Affected products: 275 g. Sensations Italy at Home - Italian
Sausage Jumbo Tortelloni with Best Before 2014 SE 23


LOUISIANA HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Accused of Violating Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Cooper, Louis Davenport, Ron Gatlin, Kenny Swatt, Stephen
Zeringue and William Pitzer, On behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals v. Kathy Kliebert, Secretary of
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, in her official
capacity, and Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00507-SDD-SCR (M.D. La., August 14, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of Civil Rights violation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald Kenneth Lospennato, Esq.
          ADVOCACY CENTER
          8325 Oak Street
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 208-4679
          Facsimile: (504) 335-2890
          E-mail: rlospennato@advocacyla.ord

               - and -

          Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@gmail.com


LOUISVILLE, KY: Sued by AFSCME for Hiring More Part-Time Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro Government breached contract by hiring more part-time
workers to squeeze out union employees, the AFSCME claims in a
class action in Jefferson County Court.


McHENRY, IL: Circuit Court Clerk Sued Over Unlawful Fines
---------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Cruz-Bernal, Courtney A. Reinhard, Michael B. Hodge, and
Thomas A. Venezio, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Katherine M. Keefe, Circuit Clerk Of The 22nd Judicial Circuit,
McHenry County, Illinois, in her Official Capacity, Case No. 3:14-
cv-50178 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2014), alleged that the Defendant
imposed fines upon the Plaintiffs in addition to the fines imposed
by the court without lawful authority.

Fernando Cruz-Bernal, Courtney A. Reinhard, Michael B. Hodge, and
Thomas A. Venezio are defendants in criminal and traffic cases
before the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in McHenry County,
Illinois.

Katherine M. Keefe is the lawfully elected Clerk of the 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court in McHenry County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond M. Flavin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RAY FLAVIN
      666 Russel Court, 106
      Woodstock, IL 60098
      Telephone: (815) 334-9004
      E-mail: ray@rayflavin.com

         - and -

      James Patrick Kelly, Esq.
      MATUSZEWICH, KELLY & MCKEEVER, LLP
      101 N. Virginia St., Suite 105
      Crystal Lake, IL 60014
      Telephone: (815) 459-3120
      E-mail: jpkelly@mkm-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew James Haiduk
      MATTHEW JAMES HAIDUK
      825 W. State, #117D
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 557-6288
      E-mail: matt@haiduklaw.com

                           *     *     *

Harry Hitzeman, writing for Daily Herald, reports that four people
have filed a lawsuit against McHenry County 22nd Judicial Circuit
Clerk Katherine Keefe, arguing her office improperly assessed
fines instead of fees in traffic and misdemeanor cases.

The federal lawsuit seeks class action status, a collective refund
of $3,525 to the four plaintiffs -- Fernando Cruz-Bernal, Courtney
A. Reinhard, Michael B. Hodge, and Thomas A. Venezio -- and
reimbursement of some $25.3 million collected from defendants in
thousands of other cases since 2003.

"When McHenry defendants leave the courtroom, they have no idea
how much they're going to pay," said Raymond Flavin, one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

Mr. Flavin said a 2009 Illinois Supreme Court ruling clarified the
difference between fines, which are to punish, and fees, which are
to help cover the cost of doing business.

The Supreme Court ruled that the circuit clerk may only impose
fees and other collar counties have adjusted to that mandate, Mr.
Flavin said.

In McHenry, Mr. Flavin said, a judge in a traffic or misdemeanor
case will order a defendant to pay a specific fine plus "court
costs," which are later imposed by the circuit clerk's office.

The lawsuit argues that the circuit clerk has assessed millions
worth of actual fines since 2003; in the cases of Mr. Bernal and
Ms. Reinhard, the total they had to pay was more than the $2,500
maximum fine for their offenses.

"The ex post facto imposition of fines on the plaintiffs by the
clerk (Keefe), violated the plaintiff's Constitutional right to
due process of law as provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution," the suit argues. "In each case the plaintiffs
additional fines were added by the clerk (Keefe) without a finding
or order of the presiding judge."

Ms. Keefe said her office received a copy of the lawsuit on
Aug. 14 and she had forwarded it to the McHenry County state's
attorney's office and deferred comment to that office.

The next court date has not been set.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Overtime Class Action for $4.2 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham, writing for Law360, reports that Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC agreed in New York federal court on Aug. 14 to fork over
$4.2 million to settle a collective action accusing the financial
services company of failing to provide overtime pay to client
services associates.

While acknowledging that the deal was "not a complete victory for
either side," both parties realized that it was in their best
interest to resolve the wage case, according to the agreement.
Christine Jockle, a representative for Morgan Stanley, echoed
those sentiments in a statement emailed to Law360 on Aug. 14.

"Morgan Stanley maintains robust policies to ensure that nonexempt
employees are paid for all time worked," the statement said.
"However, with this settlement we will put an end to protracted
and expensive litigation that is a distraction from our business."

Launched by former client services associate Phillips Amador in
2011, the suit accused Morgan Stanley of failing to provide
associates with overtime, in violation of both the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state labor law.

The plaintiffs claimed that even though Morgan Stanley classified
the CSAs as nonexempt from overtime requirements, the financial
company told the associates not to record the overtime hours they
worked, according to an amended complaint filed in February 2012.

A year later, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan
conditionally certified the FLSA collective action, finding the
plaintiffs had adequately claimed they were subject to an unlawful
overtime policy.  The workers won conditional certification of all
persons who worked as CSAs for Morgan Stanley, except in
California, in the last three years, according to the ruling.

Notices were then sent to 8,300 members, of whom roughly 11
percent joined the collective action, the settlement said.  The
plaintiffs said 865 current and former CSAs are currently involved
in the case, not including individuals associated with the New
York state class claim.

According to the agreement, the deal covers two settlement
classes: the FLSA class pertaining to CSAs who consented to join
the action, and workers who were employed in New York from July
29, 2005, to October 2014 or whenever the settlement is
preliminarily approved.

Under the terms of the deal, each class member will receive a
payment determined by how many weeks she was employed by Morgan
Stanley as a CSA, with an average payment of $1,100, according to
the agreement.  The named plaintiffs in the suit will also receive
an additional $10,000 each.

The plaintiffs emphasized in the agreement that the settlement was
fair and substantial, and would allow the workers to avoid the
risks of a trial.

"Despite plaintiffs' belief in their claims, plaintiffs' counsel
are experienced and realistic, and understand that the resolution
of liability issues, the outcome of the trial, and the inevitable
appeals process are inherently uncertain," the agreement stated.
"The proposed settlement alleviates this uncertainty."

The settlement comes as Morgan Stanley is fighting a consolidated
action accusing the company of failing to pay overtime to
financial advisers and financial adviser trainees and taking
unlawful deductions.  In May, the judge overseeing that case
trimmed the suit by dismissing a claim related to its alleged
failure to reimburse certain business expenses.

The plaintiffs are represented by Seth R. Lesser, Fran L. Rudich
and Dudley Jordan of Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Morgan Stanley is represented by Thomas A. Linthorst, Christopher
K. Ramsey -- cramsey@morganlewis.com -- and Stephanie R. Reiss --
sreiss@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Amador et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC et al., case
number 1:11-cv-04326, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


MENDARED LLC: Fails to Provide Spread-of-Hours Pay, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Williams and Mariia Protasova, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Mendared LLC d/b/a Le Souk Harem
Lounge, Marcus Andrews and Samir Jacob, Case No. 1:14-cv-06387
(S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
over their failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, as well as
their policy of making improper deductions from plaintiffs' wages,
unlawfully expropriating the Plaintiffs' tips, and for other
monies.

Mendared LLC owns and operates Le Souk Harem Lounge, a restaurant
and lounge located at 510 LaGuardia Place, New York, New York,
10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com

         - and -

      Yesenia Francisco, Esq.
      Hyland Law Firm LLC
      7300 W. 110 Street, Suite 930
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Telephone: (201) 658-0765
      E-mail: francisco@bwp-law.com


MUDTECH SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Menefee" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
James Menefee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mudtech Services, L.P., Case No. 4:14-cv-02314 (S.D.
Tex., August 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a single workweek.

Mudtech Services, L.P. provides oil field personnel to operators
and other oil field services companies in need of alternative
project staffing for mud operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEVERIA NANDOS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Ortega-Suarez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Neveria Nandos, Inc., and Hilda
Castaneda, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06204 (N.D. Ill., August
12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Neveria Nandos, Inc. owns and operates a food establishment
located within the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWMAR: Recalls Dutch Star Class A Motorhomes
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           3
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014337
TC ID number:             2014337

On certain motorhomes, the headlamp wiring harness may have been
manufactured out of specification and could allow headlamps and
fog lamps to turn on and off without driver input in the event
that one of the headlamp circuit breakers were to fail.

Dealers will replace the wiring harness.

Affected products: 2014 Newmar Dutch Star Class A Motorhome


NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Model Due to Wiper Motor That May Loosen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Visual System
Units affected:           54
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014327
TC ID number:             2014327

On certain vehicles, the hardware used to affix the windshield
wiper linkage to the wiper motor may become loose over time.  As a
result, the bolt/nut may loosen to a point where the linkage
detaches from the wiper motor, which would cause the wipers to
stop functioning.  Loss of windshield wiping capability, should it
occur during a rainy/snowy day, may compromise the driver's
ability to see the road and its users, which could result in a
crash causing property damage and/or injury.

Dealers will replace the windshield wiper linkage's nut and bolt.

Affected products: 2013 NOVA LFS


NSG HOSPITALITY: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Octavio Diaz Coya and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. NSG Hospitality Group, Inc. and Carlos Rivera,
Case No. 1:14-cv-22983-UU (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

NSG Hospitality Group, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  Carlos Rivera is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Scheme to Inflate Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Union Of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local
Union No.8, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ronald M. Faris, John V.
Britti, William C. Erbey, Case No. 9:14-cv-81057 (S.D. Fla.,
August 12, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's fraudulent scheme
to artificially inflate Ocwen Financial Corporation's stock price.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services holding
company, engaged in the servicing and origination of forward and
reverse mortgage loans in the United States and internationally.

The Individual Defendants are officers of Ocwen Financial
Corporation

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester Rene Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE PA
      2424 N Federal Highway, Suite 257
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: 394-3382
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Division, and
docketed under 14-cv-81064, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Ocwen securities between May
2, 2013 and August 11, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ocwen securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 14, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Ocwen is a financial services holding company which, through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in the servicing and origination of
forward and reverse mortgage loans in the United States and
internationally.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material information
regarding the Company's improper business and operational
practices including, among other things, that Ocwen's mortgage
servicing practices violated applicable regulations and laws; that
the Company's executives allowed related company Altisource
Portfolio Solutions, S.A. -- a company of which Defendant William
C. Erbey, Ocwen's Chairman of the Board, owns approximately 27% of
its shares outstanding-to impose wholly unreasonable rates for
services provided to Ocwen; and that Defendant William C. Erbey,
along with other directors and officers, were directly involved in
approving Ocwen's conflicted transactions with Altisource.  In
addition, the Company's financial results were artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

On December 19, 2013, the first of several partial disclosures
regarding the Company's illicit practices in connection with its
mortgage servicing business was published.  A New York Times
article titled "Big Subprime Mortgage Loan Servicer Agrees to $2.2
billion Settlement" announced a $2.2 billion settlement entered
into by Ocwen with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in
connection with the Company's mortgage servicing business. The
article stated that the Bureau "believe[s] that Ocwen violated
federal consumer financial laws at every stage of the mortgage
servicing process[.]"

On February 26, 2014, an article by Bloomberg titled, "Lawsky
Cites Ocwen Conflicts as He Reviews Wells Fargo Deal," continued
to expose Ocwen's deficient operational practices.  The article
disclosed that the New York Department of Financial Services ("NY
Department of Financial Services") issued a letter to the Company
expressing concerns regarding Ocwen's business transactions with
related companies and Defendant Erbey's and other officers' and
directors' involvement in approving transactions with said
affiliates.

On August 4, 2014, the NY Department of Financial Services issued
a second letter to Ocwen stating that it was reviewing what it
called "a troubling transaction" with Altisource relating to the
provision of force-placed insurance which is "designed to funnel
as much as $65 million in fees annually from already-distressed
homeowners to Altisource for minimal work."  The article went on
to question the "the role that Ocwen's Executive Chairman William
C. Erbey played in approving this arrangement" which "appears to
be inconsistent with public statements Ocwen has made, as well as
representations in company SEC filings."

The full truth finally emerged on August 12, 2014, when the
Company disclosed yet more problems with its business and
operations when it announced that certain transactions with
another related company in which Defendant Erbey holds a
substantial stake-Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. -- would
lead to the Company restating its financial results for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.  As a result of the restatement, the Company
announced that it expects to report material weaknesses in its
internal controls.  As a result of this disclosure, Ocwen's stock
price declined an additional $1.18 per share, or 4.48%, on higher
than average trading volume.

Overall, in response to these disclosures, the Company's stock
price plummeted an aggregate 55%, from a closing of $56.00 on
December 18, 2013 to a closing price of $25.16 on August 12, 2014.

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


ONTEL PRODUCTS: Recalls ISO7X Isometric Exercise Device
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 8, 2014
Posting date:             August 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40967

Affected products: ISO7X Isometric Exercise Device

The recall involves ISO7X isometric exercise devices.  The device
is about 1 metre (3 feet) long.  It has hard plastic black handle
grips on each end and two black nylon straps that extend down
opposite sides of the center metal shaft.  This recall only
involves isometric exercise devices with black handle grips.

The handle grips on each end can break during use and cause parts
to be forcefully ejected from the shaft, posing a risk of injury
from impact to the user or bystander.

Ontel Products has received 10 reports (none in Canada) of the
handles breaking and the ejection of the internal spring coil and
rod, including five reports of impact injuries that resulted in
punctures and lacerations.

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

Approximately 7,000 units were sold in Canada by various
retailers.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from Jan.
2011 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Ontel Products Corporation
                   Fairfield
                   New Jersey
                   United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ISO7X
isometric exercise device and contact Ontel Products to receive
instructions on how to obtain a full refund.


OS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls A1 Mountain Globe Curry Powders
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           OS Distribution
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9123

OS Distribution is recalling A1 Mountain Globe brand curry powders
from the marketplace because they contain peanuts and mustard
which are not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
peanuts and mustard 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.

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

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

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

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


PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           199
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014339
TC ID number:             2014339
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14KWJ / 814-H

On certain vehicles equipped with Cummins ISB and ISL engines, the
fuel filter shell and nut plate could separate, causing a fuel
leak and also causing the engine to stall.  Stalling would result
in a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash
resulting in injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the fuel filter.

Affected products:

   Maker          Model      Model year(s) affected
   -----          -----      ----------------------
   PETERBILT      320        2015
   KENWORTH       W900       2015
   PETERBILT      330        2015
   PETERBILT      365        2015
   PETERBILT      384        2015
   PETERBILT      325        2015
   KENWORTH       T370       2015
   KENWORTH       T270       2015
   PETERBILT      337        2015
   PETERBILT      348        2015
   KENWORTH       T440       2015
   KENWORTH       T470       2015
   PETERBILT      382        2015
   KENWORTH       K370       2015
   PETERBILT      210        2015
   PETERBILT      220        2015
   KENWORTH       K270       2015
   PETERBILT      567        2015


PAN ASIA: Recalls Korean Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 31, 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:    9131


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Did Not Pay Hours Worked Over 40, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Manigault and Melissa Pennington, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Payless Shoesource,
Inc.; Collective Brands, Inc.; and Collective Brand Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00664 (W.D.N.Y., August 14, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants willfully refused to compensate the Plaintiffs
for all the hours worked over 40 hours in any work week.

Payless Shoesource, Inc. is a Foreign Profit Corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Collective Brands, Inc. with its
principal place of business located in Topeka, Kansas.  The
Company controls all of the Payless shoe stores in New York.

Collective Brands Inc. is a Fortune 500 company, incorporated in
Delaware, with primary corporate offices in Topeka, Kansas.
Collective Brands Services, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary
corporation of Collective Brands Inc.; a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located in Topeka, Kansas.
Collective Brands Services controls a number of Payless stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dale James Morgado, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO PA
          140 Broadway, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 355-3555
          Facsimile: (212) 919 - 8439
          E-mail: dmorgado@ffmlawgroup.com


PEPCO HOLDINGS: Sued in D. Del. Over Misleading Proxy Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Alan Reichbart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. H. Russell Frisby, Jr., Patrick T. Harker,
Jack B. Dunn, IV, Terence C. Golden, Barbara J. Krumsiek, Paul M.
Barbas, Patricia A. Oelrich, Lawrence C. Nussdorf, Joseph M.
Rigby, Lester P. Silverman, Pepco Holdings Inc., Exelon
Corporation, and Purple Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-01039
(D. Del., August 12, 2014), arises out of the Defendants'
violation of the Securities Exchange Act, specifically for the
dissemination of false and misleading proxy statement in
connection with the proposed sale of Pepco Holdings Inc. to Exelon
Corporation.

Pepco Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation that specializes in
the delivery of electricity and natural gas energy in the Mid-
Atlantic region.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Pepco
Holdings Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard H. Cross Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Page Simon, Esq.
      CROSS & SIMON, LLC
      1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 777-4200
      E-mail: rcross@crosslaw.com
              csimon@crosslaw.com

         - and -

      Louis Boyarsky, Esq.
      Leanne Heine, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yisroel Jakobovis, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No.
1:14-cv-04862 (E.D.N.Y., August 14, 2014) is brought for
violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


PRO SE PLANNING: Practices Law in La. Without License, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A website that sells "tailor made pleadings" and "legal documents"
is practicing law without a license, a frustrated customer claims
in a class action lawsuit, reports Cameron Langford, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Latoisha Van Buren sued Pro Se Planning in Orleans
Parish Court.

Van Buren claims she paid Pro Se Planning $149 for divorce papers
she could not legally file in Louisiana.  She bought the paper
from the Washington state-based company through its website
divorcewriter.com, Van Buren says.

"Pro Se Planning, Inc. prepares legal documents to the general
public through its website, Divorcewriter.com.  Pro Se Planning,
Inc. offers this service by utilizing 'form filing' software on
its website, whereby consumers input personal information about
their marriage and 'tailor made' pleadings and/or legal documents,
including petitions for divorce, are created," according to the
complaint.

Van Buren says she filled out a questionnaire about her marital
status on the site on Aug. 7, and paid $149 for a divorce
petition.  She says Pro Se Planning advertises itself as a "money-
saving alternative to lawyers."

But Van Buren claims the company is not licensed to practice law
in Louisiana and any contracts for legal services with nonlawyers
in the state "are absolutely null."

Van Buren estimates the class contains more than 100 people.  She
class certification, an injunction, and she wants her money back,
and costs.

A Pro Se Planning employee declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Costales, of New Orleans.
          THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 264-2659
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


PUBLIC STORAGE: Class Action Over Lease Contracts Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a class-action suit over allegedly unenforceable exculpatory and
indemnification provisions in Public Storage lease contracts has
survived a dismissal motion in Camden, N.J., federal court.

U.S. District Chief Judge Jerome Simandle of the District of New
Jersey denied a motion by Public Storage to dismiss a count
challenging its contract language disclaiming liability for
property damage and injury to plaintiffs and other persons from
the defendant's negligence.  Judge Simandle also declined the
company's motion to dismiss a count challenging a provision
requiring the renter to indemnify Public Storage for claims
arising out of use of the property by the renter and the renter's
visitors and invitees.

In addition, Judge Simandle denied a motion by Public Storage to
dismiss a count challenging its one-year limit to bring claims
arising from the lease, and he rejected the defendant's claim that
the suit was untimely.  He did, however, dismiss one count from
the suit, which claimed that a requirement that consumers
acknowledge and initial provisions of the contract violated New
Jersey law.

The suit, Martinez-Santiago v. Public Storage, claims the company
violated the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act (TCCWNA) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).
It seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief
as well as attorney fees and costs on behalf of a class of
approximately 20,000 New Jersey consumers who rented storage units
from the company.

Plaintiff Jackeline Martinez-Santiago rented a storage unit at a
Public Storage location in Sicklerville, N.J., on Feb. 7, 2012,
listing then-boyfriend Orlando Colon as an "alternate contact" on
the lease form, according to the opinion.  On Feb. 12, 2012, Colon
slipped on a patch of ice directly in front of the plaintiff's
storage unit, suffering spinal injuries.  He filed a negligence
suit against Public Storage in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Public Storage filed a third-party complaint for indemnification
against Martinez-Santiago, claiming the matter fell under the
indemnification provision in her lease agreement.  She did not
respond to the suit and a default judgment was entered against her
in February 2013.  In September 2013, after she retained an
attorney, Martinez-Santiago moved to vacate the default judgment
and sought leave to file a third-party answer and class-action
counterclaim.

Public Storage settled Colon's suit for $20,000.  Ms. Martinez-
Santiago would have been liable for that amount, in addition to
the company's attorney fees and costs from the personal injury
case, said her attorney, Michael Galpern of the Locks Law Firm in
Cherry Hill, N.J.  But the company voluntarily dismissed its
third-party complaint against Ms. Martinez-Santiago in September
2013 before the Superior Court could rule on her motion to vacate
the default judgment against her.

Ms. Martinez-Santiago then re-filed her complaint in Superior
Court in Camden in December 2013 and the company removed the case
to federal court on diversity grounds because its headquarters are
in Glendale, Calif.  Public Storage's motion to dismiss claimed
that the provisions of the lease agreement are lawful and
enforceable and that Ms. Martinez-Santiago failed to allege that
the company engaged in unlawful conduct under the Consumer Fraud
Act.

Alternately, the company claimed that, even if the plaintiff
alleged the defendant engaged in unlawful conduct, she failed to
demonstrate a causal link between that conduct and her alleged
injury. The company also argued that her claims were time-barred
under the contract because they were brought more than a year
after she signed the lease contract.

Public Storage conceded that the default statute of limitations
for the CFA and TCCWNA is six years, but argued that nothing
prohibits parties from contracting for a shorter limitations
period, provided that it is reasonable.  Judge Simandle said the
one-year provision was not reasonable.

"A consumer would have to be clairvoyant to challenge contractual
fine print addressed to circumstances (like indemnification) that
did not themselves arise when the contract was signed," Judge
Simandle said.

The plaintiff claimed that the indemnification provision is too
broad.  Judge Simandle agreed, finding that Public Storage was
seeking indemnification from its own negligence, and New Jersey
law does not permit a party to indemnify against losses resulting
from its own negligence unless that intention is stated in
unequivocal terms.  The provision in question is unenforceable
because it does not unequivocally express an intention for such
indemnification, Judge Simandle said.

Public Storage sought to dismiss a challenge to its provision that
it be held harmless for injuries or damage to property for any
reason, including its own negligence, but excluding its own
fraudulent or willful conduct.  The company noted that such
exculpatory provisions have been upheld in New Jersey.  Judge
Simandle denied the motion to dismiss that count after finding the
exculpatory provision falls under the TCCWNA's proscription
against contracts that appear to be enforceable but are not,
thereby discouraging consumers from enforcing their rights.

Mr. Galpern called the lease agreement "an incredibly anticonsumer
contract where Public Storage, for years, has been taking
advantage of people."

Joshua Zielinski -- JZIELINSKI@MDMC-LAW.COM -- and Robert Donovan
-- RDONOVAN@MDMC-LAW.COM -- of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
Carpenter in Morristown, N.J., representing Public Storage, did
not return calls seeking comment on the decision.


RAYMOND CONTA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Greenberg and Niche Greenberg, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers v. The Law Office of
Raymond A. Conta, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-04863 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


RED BULL: Settles Deceptive Marketing Class Action for $13MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Red Bull GmbH has agreed to pay more than $13 million to settle a
putative class action in New York federal court that alleged the
Austria-based company and its U.S. subsidiaries falsely marketed
its energy drinks as providing more benefits than alternate
sources of caffeine.

Under terms of the proposed settlement, the parties have agreed
that the class would include consumers who purchased at least one
Red Bull beverage dating back to Jan. 1, 2002, according to court
documents filed July 31 by plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The energy drinks marketed under the Red Bull brand include Red
Bull Energy Drink, Red Bull Sugarfree, Red Bull Total Zero and Red
Bull Editions.

If approved by the court, class members would have a choice of
receiving either a $10 cash reimbursement or free Red Bull
products worth a retail value of $15.

The $13 million proposed settlement fund covers distributions of
the cash refunds and free products; funds to pay the class action
settlement administrator, Garden City Group Inc., and ensure
potential class members are notified about the settlement through
the media; and limited charitable donations.

Class attorneys' fees and expenses, not to exceed $4.75 million,
and an incentive award for class representatives will be paid by
Red Bull apart from the settlement fund, the plaintiffs said.

The proposed settlement also calls for Red Bull to provide
injunctive relief by discontinuing certain marketing claims.

"Beyond monetary relief, although Red Bull denies wrongdoing and
believes that its marketing materials and advertising have always
been truthful and accurate, it has voluntarily withdrawn or
revised the marketing claims challenged by plaintiffs, and will
confirm that all future claims about the functional benefits from
consuming its products will be medically and/or scientifically
supported," the plaintiffs' memo states.

Plaintiff Benjamin Careathers filed his suit against Red Bull in
2013, alleging that Red Bull labeling and marketing deceived
consumers into believing that Red Bull energy drinks are a
superior source of energy beyond caffeine.  As a result, he said
in court documents, the company induced customers into purchasing
and paying a price "premium" for its products.

Plaintiffs David Wolf and Miguel Almaraz made similar allegations
in their 2013 California class action complaint, which was later
consolidated with Mr. Careathers' action before the New York
federal court.


REX SERVICES: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Rex Services, Inc., and Jose Chavez-Jimenez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06207 (N.D. Ill., August 12, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Rex Services, Inc. provides electronic repair services within the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEARS CANADA: Recalls Joe Boxer 3-Piece PJ Sets
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 5, 2014
Posting date:             August 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40835

Affected products: Joe Boxer 3-Piece PJ Sets

The recall involves Joe Boxer 3-Piece Eat Sleep Play PJ sets (tee,
shorts, and pants) sold in boys' sizes small, medium, large, and
extra-large.  The PJ sets can be identified by the Sears item
number 26114 or 56027.

Testing by Sears Canada has determined that these products do not
meet the flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under
Canadian law.

Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this
sleepwear.

For more information on what makes safe sleepwear, visit the
Healthy Canadians children's sleepwear page.

Approximately 1,800 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold from
Jan. 2014 to July, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     International Trading Inc.
                    Tirapur
                    India

   Retailer         Sears Canada Inc.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and
return them to the nearest Sears Department Store.


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Violating Telecommunications Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Mojica, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-05258-TLB
(W.D. Ark., August 14, 2014) alleges violations of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          EVERETT, WALES & COMSTOCK
          1944 East Joyce Blvd.
          P.O. Box 8370
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-0292
          Facsimile: (479) 443-0564
          E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com

                           *     *     *

Erik De La Garza at Courthouse News Service reports that lead
plaintiff Susan Mojica claims that Securus gained monopoly power
to supply telephone services to some 2,200 jails and prisons in 45
states by paying kickbacks disguised as commissions.  The 2,200
jails and prisons hold more than 850,000 prisoners, according to
the complaint.

Securus' virtual monopoly allowed the Dallas-based telecom "to
exploit plaintiff and the class by charging them unreasonably
excessive rates for calls, as well as unconscionable and
undisclosed fees and connection charges, without regard to what
other providers of prepaid calling services are charging in the
marketplace," Mojica says in the complaint.

"As a result of the absence of competition, 'families of
incarcerated individuals often pay significantly more to receive a
single 15-minute call from prison than for their basic monthly
phone service."

The market rate for competitively priced prepaid calling cards is
about $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for calls within the United
States, and prepaid calling card rates for international calls are
as low as $0.01 per minute, according to the complaint.

"Securus, however, charges vastly more -- as high as $0.89 per
minute -- for calls within the United States, not including
exorbitant per call connection fees.  Securus likewise charges
exorbitant per minute rates for international calls," the
complaint states.

It continues: "Illustrating the unreasonableness of the rates it
charges, Securus purchases its minutes for calls terminating
within the United States from connection carriers for less than a
penny per minute.  As a result, Securus often resells the minutes
it buys at more than 100 times their cost to plaintiff and the
class.  Indeed, when commission payments were removed from 2012
cost data provided by Securus to the FCC, its cost-per-minute rate
was only $0.04, including all of its operational costs and call
transmission costs."

Mojica claims that payment of kickbacks by inmate telephone
service providers is common and substantial, "with reports
estimating that kickbacks paid to correctional facilities exceed
$103.9 million per year."

"For example, Securus reportedly gave $4.3 million in kickbacks to
correctional facilities in Arizona and $5.15 million in kickbacks
to correctional facilities in Florida.  As a result of these
contracts providing kickbacks, Securus has served as the sole
telecommunications provider for persons held in many federal,
state, and county correctional facilities throughout the United
States," the complaint states.

The Federal Communications Commission slapped Securus with
restrictions for violating the Federal Communications Act,
determining that the company "exploited its economic position by
charging rates for interstate calls greatly exceeding the cost of
providing service," according to the complaint.

Securus was formed in 2004 when Miami-based H.I.G. Capital bought
"two inmate telephone service giants," Evercom Systems and T-
Netix, which had consolidated their own control of inmate
telephone services in the 1990s, according to the lawsuit.

Calls to Securus Technologies seeking comment on August 15, 2014,
were not returned.

Mojica seeks class certification and seeks damages for violations
of the Federal Communications Act and unjust enrichment.


SELECT FOOD: Recalls Newman's Own Salad Dressings Due to Spoilage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Select Food Products Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9149


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Korean Peanut Balls Due to Undeclared Crab
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish,
                          Allergen - Other
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:    9147


SERVICE CORP: "Scott" Suit Against Eden Memorial Park Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al. (previously styled F.
Charles Sands, et al. v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.) Case No.
BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles - Central District, was filed in September
2009 against Service Corporation International and certain
subsidiaries regarding the Company's Eden Memorial Park cemetery
in Mission Hills, California. The plaintiff seeks compensatory,
consequential, and punitive damages as well as the appointment of
a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff alleges
the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not
disclose them to customers. After a hearing in February 2012, the
court in May 2012 issued an order certifying classes of cemetery
plot owners and their families based on alleged Company
misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure of material facts
regarding alleged improper burial practices pertaining to the
period from February 1985 to September 2009.  Trial proceedings
commenced in January 2014.  On February 27, 2014, the Company
announced a settlement of the lawsuit and the trial court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. All certified
claims under the lawsuit were released subject to final court
approval of the settlement. The terms of the settlement call for
the establishment of a settlement fund of $35.3 million, to which
various SCI insurance carriers contributed $25.3 million and the
Company contributed the balance. Other provisions call for, among
other things, the Company to contribute up to $0.3 million toward
claims administration costs and take certain actions in performing
future burials.

At a hearing conducted on May 15, 2014, the trial court approved
the settlement, and this matter is closed, Service Corporation
International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries primarily operating in the United States
and Canada.  Its operations consist of funeral service locations,
cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery combination locations,
crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: "Helm" Plaintiff Appeals Order Decertifying Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Bryant,
et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. RG-
07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,
were filed on December 5, 2007.  These cases were removed to
federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division. The Bryant case is
now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C
08-01184-SI.

On December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification. On
March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' renewed motions to
certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases and dismissed
the Helm case.

The Helm plaintiff is appealing the court's order decertifying her
claims.

The individual claims in the Bryant case are still pending.

The plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with
similar allegations seeking class certification of state law
claims in different states, and (ii) made a large number of
demands for arbitration.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in these
lawsuits," the Company said.

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries primarily operating in the United States
and Canada.  Its operations consist of funeral service locations,
cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery combination locations,
crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: SCI California Faces "Samborsky" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Charles
Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons
similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et
al; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central
Civil West Courthouse, was filed in April 2014 against an SCI
subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of
employees who worked as family service counselors in California
since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for
various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The
plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest and injunctive relief.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries primarily operating in the United States
and Canada.  Its operations consist of funeral service locations,
cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery combination locations,
crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: No Longer Party to "Moulton" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Karen
Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action
in June 2013 against SCI and its subsidiary in connection with
SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs
allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by
Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The
plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The Company said, "We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs'
complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to
appeals, SCI will no longer be a party to the suit. The case will
continue against our subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former
individual directors. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability,
if any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries primarily operating in the United States
and Canada.  Its operations consist of funeral service locations,
cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery combination locations,
crematoria, and related businesses.


SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: Sued in Illinois Over Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Lopez, and John Munoz, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Shoreline Management & Development Corp., d/b/a Shoreline
Communications, and Saundra M. Hansbrough, individually,
Cavo Broadband Communications, LLC, and Comcast Corporation, d/b/a
Comcast Cable Inc., a/k/a Comcast, Case No. 1:14-cv-06195 (N.D.
Ill., August 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Shoreline Management & Development Corp. provided cable technician
services within the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


SOBEYS: Recalls Lean Ground Beef Due to Polystyrene Foam
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9116

Affected products: Sobeys Lean Ground Beef with variable weight


SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Set Fees in Suit Over Reduced Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has set attorneys' fees owed to a class who saw a
reduction in insurance benefits because they also receive old-age
benefits from the National Insurance Institute of Israel,
according to Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Ephraim Greenberg sued the Social Security
Administration last year after it implemented a reduction to old-
age, survivors or disability benefits under the windfall-
elimination provision of the Social Security Act.

The Social Security Administration immediately admitted that the
reduction was wrong, and refused to fight the plaintiffs' request
for class certification, but argued that the plaintiffs' attorneys
should be awarded fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act
instead of under the Social Security Act as the plaintiffs had
requested.

"Defendants set forth various arguments, all of which are
unavailing, in an attempt to persuade the court that attorney fees
in a Social Security class action suit are inappropriate under
Section 406(b)," U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote on
August 8.

The judge ruled that "the statute, however, does not demand a
contingent agreement; it merely states that the court may award
reasonable attorney fees, not in excess of twenty-five percent of
total past-due benefits, to a lawyer who has represented a
successful claimant in court," she added.

Counsel for the class is entitled to fees no greater than 25
percent of each beneficiary payment, according to the ruling.

Settlement discussions prodded an agreement by the administration
to rescind the reduction in benefits, recalculate the benefits
owed and pay out such benefits as if the reduction had not been
applied.

The Department of Justice must approve the final settlement terms
before Collyer will review them for approval.

The case is Ephraim Greenberg v. Carolyn W. Colvin, in her
official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, and The Social Security Administration, Case No.
13-1837 (RMC), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


SOUTHEASTERN MILLS: Recalls Shore Lunch Soup Mixes
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 31, 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:           Southeastern Mills Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9124


SOUTHERN CROSS: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages & Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Barragan and Pedro Leal, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Southern Cross Hospitality Corp., Explorer
NYC Corp., jointly d/b/a Burke & Wills Restaurant, Matilda Boland,
Tim Harris, Greg Seider, Heathe St. Clair and John Does #1-10,
jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06504-PAC (S.D.N.Y.,
August 14, 2014) seeks to recover overtime wages and statutory
penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping violations for the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs were hourly employees, who worked for the
Defendants at their restaurant located in New York County.

Southern Cross Hospitality Corp. and Explorer NYC Corp. are non-
publicly traded New York domestic business corporations operating
a restaurant in New York.  They operated and operate under the
assumed name of Burke & Wills Restaurant.  The Individual
Defendants exercised control over all aspects of the day-to-day
functions of Burke & Wills.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene G. Eisner, Esq.
          EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          113 University Place, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 473-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
          E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com


SUNTECH POWER: California Court Refused to Dismiss "Bruce" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese solar company Suntech Power Holdings and its former chief
executive must face a class action accusing them of lying to
investors, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service, citing
a federal court ruling.

A "strong inference" can be made that former Suntech CEO Zhengrong
Shi knowingly made false public statements about the company's
liabilities before a scandal broke that plummeted Suntech's stock
prices, the August 12, 2014 ruling states.

New evidence, including e-mails and internal Suntech documents,
support the ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said.

Shi had moved to dismiss in late March after the plaintiffs led by
Scott Bruce provided the documents with the second amended
complaint.  An earlier version of the complaint lacked sufficient
facts to support the class's claims, but the new version "fares
better," Seeborg wrote.

Bruce alleges that Suntech and Shi kept shareholders in the dark
though they knew that there was something wrong with the more than
$700 million in German government bonds pledged as part of a
Suntech loan guarantee.  When the company admitted the bond pledge
by investment fund Global Solar Fund Capital had been fabricated,
stock prices nosedived 15 percent, closing July 30, 2012, at $1.34
a share.

Several 2009 e-mails from Global Solar Fund official Javier Romero
to Shi say that the loan guarantee collateral should be kept
confidential from the market, according to the plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  Additional correspondence allegedly shows that the
company never conducted due diligence on Global Solar Fund, even
though the Suntech board specified precautions were necessary.

What's more, based on statements made by Romero in a United
Kingdom court, Shi may have known or suspected fraud some five
months before publicly disclosing to shareholders the situation,
Seeborg wrote.

"Given Shi's close involvement in the bond transaction [and] his
position in the company as CEO . . . a strong inference can now be
drawn that Shi acted with deliberate recklessness," the judge
wrote.

Suntech was forced into Chinese bankruptcy court in 2013 and filed
for Chapter 15 bankruptcy in Manhattan this February, according to
news reports.

The defendants must respond to the amended complaint within 20
days.

The case is Scott Bruce, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. and
Zhengrong Shi, Case No. 3:12-cv-04061-RS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.


SUZUKI: Recalls Kizashi Model Due to Possible Fuel Leak
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           2175
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014320
TC ID number:             2014320
Manufacturer recall
number:                   160

On certain vehicles, a particular type of spider may weave a web
in the evaporative canister vent line which may cause a
restriction in the line.  If this occurs, the fuel tank pressure
may become excessively negative when the emission control system
works to purge the vapors from the canister.  As the canister is
purged repeatedly during normal operation, the stress on the fuel
tank may eventually result in a crack causing a fuel leak.  Fuel
leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a
fire causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will inspect the canister vent line and replace it with a
line containing a filter. If a web is found in the old line, the
fuel tank will also be replaced

Affected products: 2010, 2011, 2012 Suzuki Kizashi


T-BROTHERS: Recalls Korean Peanut Balls to Undeclared Crab & Squid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish,
                          Allergen - Other
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:    9128


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mary's Organic Crackers and Pretzels
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 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:           Tree of Life Canada ULC
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New
                          Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec,
                          Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories,
                          Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9132


TRI COUNTY SECURITY: Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silverio R. Knights, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Tri County Security, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Thomas C.
Little, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22988-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
August 14, 2014) is brought for overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants owned and operated a business and doing business in
Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNILEVER US: Sued Over Keratin Infusion Hair-Care Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Davis and Trish Welch v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., Unilever
United States Inc., Conopco Inc., Heb Grocery Company LP, Family
Dollar Inc., and Dolgencorp of Texas Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-14-
002841 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Travis Cty., August 11, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of engaging in deceptive trade practice.

In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that Unilever's
Keratin Infusion hair-care products make your hair fall out,
claims a class action in Travis County Court.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Chancery Ct. Nixes Deal in Medicis Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s acquisition
of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, several purported holders
of then public shares of Medicis filed putative class action
lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Arizona
Superior Court against Medicis and the members of its Board of
Directors, as well as one or both of Valeant and Merlin Merger Sub
(the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with
the Medicis Acquisition).

The Delaware actions (which were instituted on September 11, 2012
and October 1, 2012, respectively) were consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.).

The Arizona action (which was instituted on September 11, 2012)
bears the caption Swint v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, et.
al., Case No. CV2012-055635 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.).

The actions all alleged, among other things, that the Medicis
directors breached their fiduciary duties because they supposedly
failed to properly value Medicis and caused materially misleading
and incomplete information to be disseminated to Medicis' public
shareholders, and that Valeant and/or Merlin Merger Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions also
sought, among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and money damages.

On November 20, 2012, Medicis and the other named defendants in
the Delaware action signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
to settle the Delaware action and resolve all claims asserted by
the purported class.  The parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement on November 25, 2013, which
provided, among other things, that Medicis and the other
defendants would not oppose plaintiffs' request for a fee award
(subject to a capped amount).  The settlement and fee award were
subject to court approval.

Valeant said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014, that at the settlement hearing on February
26, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to approve the
settlement or award plaintiffs any attorneys' fees.

The plaintiff in the Arizona action agreed to dismiss her
complaint. On January 15, 2013, the Arizona Superior Court issued
an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the
Arizona action.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 19 Hearing in Obagi Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s acquisition
of all of the outstanding common stock of Obagi Medical Products,
Inc., the following complaints were filed: (i) a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013,
and amended on April 1, 2013 and on April 8, 2013, captioned
Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; (ii) a
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on March 27,
2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.;
and (iii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 27, 2013, captioned
Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.

Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names
as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board of
Directors. The two complaints filed in California also name
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Obagi
acquisition) as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in each
action are substantially similar. The plaintiffs allege that the
members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the sale of the
company, and the California complaints further allege that Obagi,
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. In support of their
purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that the proposed
transaction undervalued Obagi, involved an inadequate sales
process and included preclusive deal protection devices.

The plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case
in California also filed amended complaints, which added
allegations challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning
the transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the
plaintiffs in the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of
California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits. The parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release on January 31,
2014, which set forth the terms for the settlement and dismissal
of the lawsuits and provided, among other things, that Obagi and
the other defendants would not oppose plaintiffs' request for a
fee award (subject to a capped amount). That settlement and fee
award were subject to court approval.

On February 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing on
Settlement, preliminarily certifying the Rubin case as a non-opt
out class action for settlement purposes, directing notice of the
proposed settlement to members of the class, and setting a hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement for April 30, 2014.

At the settlement hearing on April 30, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery declined to approve the settlement or award plaintiff any
attorneys' fees.

On May 1, 2014, Obagi filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Verified
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. After receiving notice that the parties had
reached an agreement to settle the litigation, the Superior Court
of the State of California scheduled a "Hearing on Order to Show
Cause Re Dismissal" and continued the hearing several times
pending completion of definitive documentation and approval
proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
That "OSC re: Dismissal" hearing in the Superior Court of the
State of California, which was previously scheduled for June 9,
2014, has now been continued to September 19, 2014, Valeant said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend these actions.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept 29 Settlement Hearing in Solta Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s completion
of the acquisition of Solta Medical, several purported holders of
then public shares of Solta Medical filed putative class action
lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Alameda, against Solta
Medical and the members of its board of directors, as well as the
Company, Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Solta Medical
acquisition). The Delaware actions were consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Solta Medical, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9170-CS (Del. Ch.). The California actions
were filed under the captions Lathrop v. Covert, et al., Case No.
HG13-707363 (Cal. Super.); Walter, et al. v. Solta Medical, Inc.,
et al., Case No. RG13-707659 (Cal. Super.); and Bushansky v. Solta
Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG13-707997 (Cal. Super.).

The plaintiffs' allegations in each action were substantially
similar. The actions all alleged, among other things, that the
directors of Solta Medical breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders of Solta Medical in connection with the Company's
proposed acquisition of Solta Medical. In support of their
purported claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the proposed
transaction did not appropriately value Solta Medical, was the
result of an inadequate process and included preclusive deal
protection devices. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by Solta Medical on December 23, 2013, in connection
with the proposed transaction contained material omissions and
misstatements. The complaints claimed that Solta Medical, the
Company, Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions sought,
among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
money damages. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys' and expert
fees and costs.

While the defendants believed that each of the aforementioned
lawsuits were without merit and that they had valid defenses to
all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any
litigation relating to the lawsuits, on January 11, 2014,
following arms-length negotiations, Solta Medical and the other
named defendants signed an MOU to settle the actions and resolve
all claims asserted by the purported stockholder classes. The
settlement, which is subject to court approval and further
definitive documentation, provides for a release and settlement by
Solta Medical's stockholders of all claims against Solta Medical
and the other defendants and their respective affiliates and
agents in connection with the Company's acquisition of Solta
Medical. In connection with the proposed settlement, the
plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
in an amount to be determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On July 10, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release and the Court
entered a scheduling order on July 14, 2014 that sets September
29, 2014 as the date for the settlement hearing, Valeant said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that United
Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers
Health and Welfare Fund, filed on July 22, 2013, a civil antitrust
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-04235-JCJ,
against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, the Company and
various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging
that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to
exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride
extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of
acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn(R).  The
plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a
scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and
abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in the market for
minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the
detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor
purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have
been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable,
treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including
attorneys' fees.

Additional class action complaints making similar allegations
against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have
been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated
direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn(R) (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July
23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-
JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed
Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge
31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D.
Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health
& Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug.
30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed
Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-
cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of
Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013);
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U
Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Oct. 25, 2013)).

On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class
action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all
defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar
relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints.

On October 11, 2013, Medicis and the Company filed a motion with
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking
an order transferring and consolidating the thirteen putative
class action cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On February 25, 2014, the JPML ordered that the cases pending
outside the District of Massachusetts be transferred to the
District of Massachusetts, with the consent of that court, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
already pending in that district.  The Multi-District Litigation
("MDL"), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, is now pending
before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.

Two additional end-payor actions have been filed in the District
of Massachusetts since the February 25th centralization order:
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D.
Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case
No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014).  These cases
have been included in the pending MDL.

Plaintiffs have filed motions with the court seeking consolidation
of the cases and these motions are currently pending.

"We are in the process of evaluating the claims and plan to
vigorously defend these actions," the Company said.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Costs Orders in Afexa Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a
Notice of Civil Claim was filed on March 9, 2012, in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that
Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-
FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product
during the applicable period and that the proposed class has
suffered damages as a result. The Company filed its certification
materials on February 6, 2013 and a hearing on certification was
held on September 3 to 6, 2013.  An additional hearing day was
scheduled for January 16, 2014.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which seeks to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed.  As a
result, the hearing date scheduled for January 16, 2014 was
cancelled and, at the request of the Court, the parties made
submissions to address the impact of the amendments.

The Court rendered a decision on March 27, 2014 denying costs
orders for both parties and directing the parties to obtain a
revised certification hearing schedule for the continuation of the
certification hearing at agreeable time. The Company denies the
allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Case Status Conference Took Place June 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation in September, 2011, received a
demand letter from counsel purporting to represent a class of
female sales employees alleging gender discrimination in, among
others things, compensation and promotion as well as claims that
the former management group maintained a work environment that was
hostile and offensive to female sales employees. Related charges
of discrimination were filed prior to the end of 2011 by six
former female sales employees with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"). Three of those charges have
been dismissed by the EEOC and the EEOC has made no findings of
discrimination. Medicis engaged in mediation with such former
employees.

On March 19, 2013, Medicis and counsel for the former employees
signed an MOU to settle this matter on a class-wide basis and
resolve all claims with respect thereto. In connection with the
agreed-upon settlement, Medicis would pay a specified sum and
would pay the costs of the claims administration up to an agreed-
upon fixed amount. Medicis would also implement certain specified
programmatic relief. The parties have signed a definitive
settlement agreement in this matter.

On September 5, 2013, a putative class action was filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter of Brown
et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (No. 1:13-cv-01345-
RJL) based on the allegations described above. Simultaneously with
the filing of the Complaint, the parties filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.  Among other
things, the settlement agreement, if approved, will resolve all of
the remaining related EEOC charges. A case status conference took
place on June 6, 2014 and a hearing on the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement is expected to be
scheduled for the third quarter of 2014.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: B&L Settled 629 MoistureLoc(TM) Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Bausch
& Lomb Holdings Incorporated has been served or is aware that it
has been named as a defendant in approximately 322 currently
active product liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs)
pending in a New York State Consolidated Proceeding described
below as well as certain other U.S. state courts on behalf of
individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of
using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM). Two
consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc(TM)
claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the
Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second,
on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating
Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State,
and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are
approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in
the New York Consolidated Proceeding.

On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the
New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non-
fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from
testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On
September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling.

On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs' additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
motion to renew the trial court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a
motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims.

On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to
renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing
all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court's ruling. On March 19,
2014, Plaintiffs filed an Application for an Enlargement of Time
in which to perfect the within appeal to the September term.

A decision was granted on May 13, 2014, pursuant to which the
Court granted the requested extension to perfect the within appeal
to the October term.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM).

Currently B&L has settled approximately 629 cases in connection
with MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All but one U.S.
based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are less
than five active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of
the United States that remain pending. The parties in these active
matters are involved in settlement discussions.

Valeant is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad
range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter ("OTC") products, and medical devices (contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in
over 100 countries.  On August 5, 2013, the Company acquired
Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended (the "Merger Agreement")
dated May 24, 2013, with B&L surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "B&L Acquisition").


VAN RU CREDIT: Settles TCPA Class Action for $2.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that Van Ru Credit Corp.
agreed on Aug. 13 to pay $2.3 million, or $1,600 per class member,
to settle allegations that it placed prerecorded calls to
plaintiffs' phones without consent, in what attorneys call one of
the largest per-member Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
settlements ever.

Arizona federal judge Stephen M. McNamee approved the settlement
under which Van Ru agreed to pay class members $1,600 each to
settle the suit filed by lead plaintiff Nivea Ritchie in January
2013 alleging it placed unsolicited calls on behalf of debt
collectors Palisades Collection LLC and Asta Funding Inc.

"For robodialed calls, I have not seen any other settlements that
were this high on a per-person basis," Mike Greenwald, counsel for
the plaintiffs, told Law360.  "We did pretty exhaustive research,
and I didn't come across anything that was even close."

Ms. Ritchie filed suit in Arizona federal court alleging Van Ru
placed prerecorded calls to the wrong consumers' cellphones by
using an inaccurate skip trace vendor, in violation of the TCPA.

Class members receiving payments under the settlement include all
people in the U.S. whose cellphones Van Ru called using an
automatic dialing service from January 1, 2012, to May 31, 2012,
according to the order.  Ms. Richie will receive $12,000 from the
settlement fund for her role as class representative.

Mr. Greenwald said that class members received, on average, 3.3
calls from Van Ru and are receiving the maximum settlement
permitted under the TCPA.  There are about 9,042 potential class
members, but only those who submit claims will receive payment.

Judge McNamee also granted plaintiffs' request for $644,000 in
attorneys' fees and $20,847 in litigation expenses, according to
the order.

The three debt collectors continue to deny any liability for the
alleged violations, according to the agreement.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael L. Greenwald --
mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com -- and James L. Davidson --
jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com -- of Greenwald Davidson PLLC and Marshall
S. Meyers and Joseph M. Panvini of Weisberg & Meyers LLC.

Van Ru is represented by Daniel W. Pisani --
dpisani@sessions-law.biz -- and James K. Schultz --
jschultz@sessions-law.biz -- of Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel
LLC and James L. Blair, Randy L. Kingery -- rkingery@rcdmlaw.com
-- and Steven G. Mesaros -- smesaros@rcdmlaw.com -- of Renaud Cook
Drury Mesaros PA.

The case is Ritchie v. Van Ru Credit Corp., case number 2:12-cv-
01714, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Removed "Casas" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Casas v. Victoria's Secret
Stores, LLC, et al., Case No. BC550978, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
06412 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Beth A. Gunn, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: beth.gunn@ogletreedeakins.com


VIRGIN AMERICA: Suits Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lorre, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Virgin
America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC554740 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 14, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
wages for meal and rest break violations, amounts improperly
deducted from wages, statutory penalties, restitution, as well as
other damages owed pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Virgin America, Inc. does substantial business in the state of
California and owns and operates an airline that is headquartered
in Burlingame, California.  The Company services the airports in
these cities within California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
Jose, San Diego, and Palm Springs.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of
the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
          ARCHIBALD & BERENJI
          633 West Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (310) 855-3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855-3751
          E-mail: berenji@abemployeelaw.com
                  archibald@abemployeelaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Jury Erred in Awarding $3.95MM, 5th Cir. Ruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas jury erred in levying $3.95 million in civil penalties
against Wal-Mart because the in-store optometrists pressed to stay
open longer by the retail giant could not prove they suffered
economic damages, David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a
5th Circuit ruling.

Lead plaintiff Doris Forte filed a class action against the
retailer in the Houston Federal Court in 2012, after years of
discussion between the Texas Optometry Board and Wal-Mart over
alleged violations of the Texas Optometry Act.

Beginning in 1992, when it first began leasing space to Texas
optometrists, Wal-Mart used a standard lease agreement that
required them to state a projected number of hours their offices
would remain open.

Under this agreement, the retailer required optometrists to remain
open for at least 45 hours per week, and levied a fine of $200 per
day of violation on those who failed to do so.

In 1995, the Texas Optometry Board notified Wal-Mart that setting
required hours violated the Texas Optometry Act.  Wal-Mart removed
the provision from its lease, but continued to run afoul of the
board.  In 2003, for instance, the board notified the retailer
that it had learned the store had told an optometrist that
customers were requesting longer hours.

"The Board warned that, although it was aware that Wal-Mart had
also stated 'the ultimate decision regarding the hours and fees
for eye examinations are made by the doctors,' even informing
optometrists of customer requests for longer hours violated the
TOA," court documents say.

These cumulative acts ultimately led to Forte's lawsuit.

A jury later found Wal-Mart liable for "setting or attempting to
influence" office hours in violation of the law and awarded $3.95
million in civil penalties.  It was the maximum amount possible
under the law -- $1,000 per day each plaintiff operated under his
or her lease.

The trial judge called the award "stunning" and "the highest
verdict that's been reached in this case . . . in a case that was
not worthy of the highest verdict."

A three-judge panel with the 5th Circuit agreed with the jury's
find of liability, but reversed and vacated the civil penalty
award on August 14.

Writing for the appeals court, Judge E. Grady Jolly said the
optometrists "neither suffered nor were awarded any underlying
damages."  He concluded the trial judge erroneously ruled that
Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code did not
apply in refusing any of the civil penalties.

"Because civil penalties under the TOA constitute 'exemplary
damages' under Chapter 41, and because the plaintiffs have
acknowledged that non-nominal damages were not awarded, Chapter 41
eliminates the award of civil penalties unless some exception to
Chapter 41 applies," the 13-page opinion stated.

Jolly also concluded the trial court incorrectly applied Chapter
41's lower damage cap exception.

"Chapter 41's section 41.004 caps damages for each plaintiff's
claim at zero, because no plaintiff received non-nominal damages
that would have in turn permitted any award of exemplary damages,"
he wrote.  "By contrast, the TOA caps civil penalties at '$1,000
for each day of a violation.'  Because the TOA does not establish
a lower damage cap than Chapter 41, Chapter 41's lower damage cap
exception does not apply."

However, Jolly disagreed with Wal-Mart's invoking of the common
law absurdity canon, which calls for not using the plan language
of the law when it "produces absurd results."  Wal-Mart argued
that if the TOA was applied literally, it would not be allowed to
order the tenant to keep their store clean.  Wal-Mart argued that,
as a result, there must be a link between the "attempt to control"
and an attempt to control the optometrist's professional judgment.

"Wal-Mart was on notice that the TOA prohibited setting or
attempting to influence office hours," the opinion stated.  "But
Wal-Mart, a sophisticated party, contracted with optometrists
nonetheless.  Given that it was on notice of the TOA when it began
contracting with optometrists, Wal-Mart's liability was not
'patently nonsensical.'"

Randy Hargrove, Wal-Mart's Director of National Media Relations,
said the company is "pleased that the court concluded no civil
penalties were warranted" in this case. "Wal-Mart is proud to have
independent optometrists provide our customers with access to
convenient and quality eye care," he said on August 18, 2014.
"Wal-Mart seeks to maintain a good relationship with each of those
optometrists and with the Texas Board of Optometry.  While we
disagree that the Texas Optometry Act prohibited Wal-Mart from
merely discussing hours of operation with former licensees, we
stopped discussing hours of operation with Texas optometrists five
years ago."

The appellate case is Doris Forte, O.D., et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 12-40854, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.


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

The food recall warning issued on July 21, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product code information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

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

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

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.  Consumers who are unsure whether they have the
affected products are advised to check with their retailer or
supplier.

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

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

The recall was triggered by a recall in the United States by
Wawona Packing Company of California.  The recall by the US
company is published on the website of the United States Food and
Drug Administration (USFDA).  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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


WELLINGTON LEATHER: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 USC 216(b) v. Wellington Leather, LLC, d.b.a.
Barbarossa Leather and Alex Mandelbaum, Case No. 9:14-cv-81051
(S.D. Fla., August 12, 2014), recover his unpaid overtime wages as
a result of Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Wellington Leather, LLC is engaged in leather importing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashley Marie Dewelde, Esq.
      William Thomas Brady Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM BRADY, P.A.
      800 Brickell AVe, PH-2
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (786) 556-0362
      E-mail: adewelde16@gmail.com
              wbrady@wbradylaw.com


YAHOO INC: Court Dismissed Most Claims in E-mail Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo batted down most claims that it uses e-mails from
nonsubscribers to target advertising but will still face
electronic-storage claims, reports William Dotinga at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Four people who do not use Yahoo but have sent e-mails to Yahoo
subscribers since October 2011 filed suit last year, claiming that
the company violates federal and state wiretapping laws -- and
privacy rights -- by scanning their e-mails to better target
advertising at its own subscribers.

Yahoo counters that its terms of service and privacy policy are
crystal clear: it scans, collects, analyzes and stores e-mails,
and its subscribers are responsible for warning the nonsubscribers
they communicate with accordingly.

In addressing a motion to dismiss the now-consolidated class
action, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on August 12, 2014,
acknowledged that Yahoo's rigorous terms of service establish
explicit consent from its users to scan and analyze all e-mails
for targeted advertising, this protecting it from the wiretap
portion of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

"The court concludes that the terms of service establishes
explicit consent by Yahoo Mail users to Yahoo's conduct," Koh
wrote.  "In light of the clarity of the language in this
disclosure, to which Yahoo Mail users agreed when creating an
account, the court finds that the ATOS provides explicit and
sufficient notification to Yahoo Mail users that any communication
sent via Yahoo Mail will be scanned and analyzed for the stated
purposes of providing personal product features, providing
targeted advertising, and detecting spam and abuse.  By agreeing
to the ATOS, Yahoo Mail users consented to such conduct.
Plaintiffs provide no convincing argument to the contrary other
than to say that 'the ATOS does not explicitly inform Yahoo Mail
users what Yahoo does with the contents of its users' email.'"

Nonusers fared better, however, with their claim that the company
shares data stored on its own servers with third parties in
violation of federal law.

"Yahoo's own frequently asked questions page admits that Yahoo
shares email content with third parties," Koh wrote.  "Under these
circumstances, the court concludes that plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that Yahoo improperly disclosed 'contents' of email
communications to third parties."

The company must also face a claim under the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, which shields the right to privacy by prohibiting
electronic eavesdropping.  Koh had no patience for Yahoo's
attempted to quibble over whether the e-mails were "in transit" or
"in storage" when they were scanned and analyzed -- the latter
being expressly prohibited.

"The court must defer resolution of whether Yahoo accessed the e-
mails only after the e-mails were on Yahoo's servers until after
discovery makes clear where and how Yahoo's scanning technology
intercepted the e-mails," Koh wrote.  "Thus, the court rejects
Yahoo's first argument that CIPA does not apply."

She continued: "Yahoo's second argument that CIPA should not apply
when an email has reached Yahoo's servers -- based on allegedly
illogical implications that would result from applying CIPA's all-
party consent provision to such e-mails -- similarly assumes the
e-mails were on Yahoo's server when intercepted, which this court
cannot assume at this stage.  Even if the court could make such an
assumption, the court would still have to reject Yahoo's argument
that the court should find the e-mails at issue were not 'in
transit' when intercepted because that would contradict the
allegations in the complaint, which the court must accept as true.
Thus, the court rejects Yahoo's second argument why CIPA does not
apply."

As for the invasion-of-privacy claim under the California
Constitution, no courts have addressed whether privacy protections
should be extended to all e-mail communications in general --
regardless of whether or not they contain sensitive or
confidential information, Koh found.

The plaintiffs have 21 days to fix their complaint or face full
dismissal of the suit, Koh concluded.

The case is In re Yahoo Mail Litigation, Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division.


* Number of Filings in Pelvic Mesh Litigation Up in Philadelphia
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that the number of
filings in the pelvic mesh litigation in Philadelphia has
increased since the mass tort's creation in February, court
officials said.

So far there are 859 total filings, according to the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas Complex Litigation Center's records.  The
mass tort saw the largest influx of cases in June, with 375
filings.  In July, 192 cases were filed and four have been added
in August, said the center's director, Stanley Thompson.

According to the center's most recent case listings, pelvic mesh
has the second largest inventory behind the Reglan mass tort,
which has 2,293 filings.  Behind pelvic mesh is the Risperdal mass
tort with 699 filings and asbestos litigation with 683 filings.

These numbers have not affected the court's ability to operate
smoothly, according to Judge Arnold L. New, coordinating judge of
the Complex Litigation Center.

In addition to the pelvic mesh litigation, "everything else has
been remaining on course," New said, "exactly the way I hoped it
would go."

Pelvic or transvaginal mesh is intended to treat urinary
incontinence in women by supporting prolapsed organs.  The
plaintiffs allege that the mesh erodes prematurely, causing
injuries including severe pain, sexual dysfunction and
gynecological problems.  The primary defendants in the cases
include Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon
Inc., Secant Medical and Boston Scientific Corp.

Tom Kline of Kline & Specter, the firm serving as liaison counsel
in the Philadelphia mass tort, said oral argument on Secant's
preliminary objections was recently held before New.

Secant claimed that it was immune from liability under the
Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998, Mr. Kline said.  The
act protects suppliers of biomaterials from civil liability.  The
act does not, however, protect manufacturers of biomaterial-based
devices.

Mr. Kline said, "We believe strongly that Secant is indeed the
manufacturer and therefore a proper defendant answerable under the
tort liability laws of Pennsylvania."

Joe Tucker -- jtucker@tlgattorneys.com -- of Tucker Law Group
represents Secant and declined to comment.  Boston Scientific is
represented by Joanna Vassallo of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, who did
not return a call seeking comment.

The Legal previously reported that several cases had been
relocated from Philadelphia to a West Virginia-based multidistrict
litigation, causing a West Virginia federal judge to impose
sanctions on Drinker Biddle & Reath, the firm representing
Ethicon.

In Wilson v. Ethicon Women's Health and Urology, one of more than
18,000 cases assigned to U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of
the Southern District of West Virginia in the MDL, Goodwin said
Drinker Biddle continued to remove cases from Philadelphia,
thereby ignoring his prior rulings in other cases that his court
did not have federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiffs'
state-court claims.

"Ethicon's continued removal of these cases ignores both prior
decisions of this court and clearly established federal law,"
Goodwin said in his opinion.  "Ethicon claims in its opposition to
the motion to remand that 'defendants have no desire to remove
cases only to have them remanded or to relitigate issues already
decided by the court.' However, by removing cases with no
ascertainable legal basis, that is exactly what the defendants are
doing."

Goodwin ordered Drinker Biddle to pay plaintiff Ann Wilson the
attorney fees and costs she incurred in filing a motion to remand
the case back to the Philadelphia trial court as well as an
additional sanction equal to that amount.

Mr. Kline noted that all of the cases sent to the MDL involving
Secant, a corporation based in Perkasie, Pa., have returned to
Philadelphia.

Kenneth A. Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle
in Philadelphia did not return a call seeking comment.

In February, Mr. Kline said he thought the pelvic-mesh mass tort
would grow to be the largest program in recent memory, surpassing
the litigation surrounding the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx.

"This stacks up as a very significant litigation.  There have been
a number of verdicts for plaintiffs in bellwether trials, and each
of the verdicts has been a seven-figure jury verdict," Mr. Kline
had said.  "These cases are very significant cases involving
injuries which are readily understandable, by women in particular,
who can certainly appreciate the horrors that the mesh has caused
to thousands."

Matthew Johnson, director of communications for Johnson &
Johnson's Ethicon, had said in a February email to The Legal, "We
are confident the evidence will show that Ethicon acted
appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and
marketing of our pelvic mesh products."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: FedEx Faces Criminal Case for Fibro Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation was slapped by the U.S. Department of Justice
with a criminal case relating to seven asbestos-related regulatory
violations, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2014.

On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Grand
Jury Subpoena to FedEx Express relating to an asbestos matter
previously investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. On May 1, 2014, the DOJ informed us that it had determined
to continue to pursue the matter as a criminal case, citing seven
asbestos-related regulatory violations associated with removal of
roof materials from a hangar in Puerto Rico during cleaning and
repair activity, as well as violation of waste disposal
requirements. Loss is reasonably possible, however, the amount of
any loss is expected to be immaterial.

FedEx Corporation (FedEx) is a holding company. The Company
provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business
services under the FedEx brand. The Company operates in four
segments: FedEx Express, FedEx Ground, FedEx Freight and FedEx
Services. Federal Express Corporation (FedEx Express) is an
express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery
within one to three business days and serving markets. FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service. FedEx Ground provides day-certain
service to every business address in the United States and Canada.
FedEx Freight Inc. (FedEx Freight) is a provider of less-than-
truckload (LTL) freight services. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc.
(FedEx Services) provides the Company's other companies with
sales, marketing, information technology, communications and back-
office support. In May 2014, the Company acquired Supaswift
businesses in South Africa and six other countries.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Dad Sues Shell Over Deadly Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Taylor, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that a dad-of-
two is suing oil giant Shell after he was allegedly exposed to
deadly asbestos dust on a North Sea rig more than 40 years ago.

Bill Jones, 67, from Knowsley Village, in England, now suffers
from a serious lung illness and uses an oxygen tube to help him
breathe.

Mr Jones believes his health troubles were caused by inhaling the
toxic powder while working for Shell in the late 60s and early
70s.  He told the Sunday ECHO: "I was based in the North Sea, off
the Norfolk-Suffolk coast and I used a drilling chemical called
Flosal, which was 85% to 95% powdered asbestos.

"At the time I didn't know that Flosal was ground asbestos.

"It was only many years afterwards that I was told it had later
been banned because it contained the dangerous powder."

Mr Jones worked on the North Sea rig from 1969 to 1971. He left
Shell in 1978 and later started his own consultancy firm.  He
retired in 2009 -- around the time he began suffering from severe
breathlessness.

"I was smoking at the time," Mr Jones said. "I thought it must be
to do with that so I stopped smoking.

"But there was no improvement and my GP asked if I had ever been
exposed to asbestos.

"That's when a big bell started ringing in my head."

Mr Jones, who is married with two children, was diagnosed with
diffuse pleural thickening in November 2010 -- a medical condition
caused when asbestos fibres become embedded in the lining of the
lungs.

He said: "There is no cure and it gets progressively worse.

"I'm now prescribed to use an oxygen pack for two hours a day.

"You gradually lose your lung capacity as the pleural thickening
becomes worse and worse.

"When the weather is humid I find it particularly hard to breathe.
I also lose my breath walking uphill or climbing the stairs."

Mr Jones continued: "The dust I was exposed to was in such great
volumes that, often after emptying sacks of Flosal, the room
became a swirling mass of dust as the powder billowed up.

"My colleagues and I looked like snowmen within minutes, we could
not help but get completely covered by it.

"Little did we know what we were breathing in at the same time
would be so dangerous."

Catherine Higgins, from Catherine Higgins Law, the firm helping Mr
Jones with his lawsuit, said: "Sadly, Bill's case is not an
uncommon one.

"He was not advised of the danger he was being exposed to, he does
not remember being instructed to wear a mask and the only overalls
he was provided with were made of cotton.

"Bill has now been left with an illness that could have been
prevented if it weren't for a deficiency in his employer's health
and safety regime.

"To support Bill's case, we're looking for people who worked on
rigs or platforms on the Norfolk-Suffolk coast in the early
1970s."

Shell declined to comment on the case as it is the "subject of
ongoing litigation".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak Fibro Claims Not Covered, Insurers Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reported that dozens of Amtrak's
insurers filed suit in New York federal court to avoid covering
the government-backed railroad service for a wide range of claims
over its environmental cleanup obligations and liability for
exposing individuals to asbestos and other health hazards.

The plaintiffs, led by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London,
are asking the court to determine whether they are obligated to
cover Amtrak under numerous liability policies issued in the 1970s
and 1980s for the hodgepodge of claims, which total at least tens
of millions of dollars, though the complaint omitted specifics due
to confidentiality concerns.

The coverage dispute has been brewing for a decade, but sporadic
negotiations failed to bear fruit and Amtrak recently terminated a
standstill agreement between the parties, according to the suit,
which also targets dozens of Amtrak's other insurers who either
issued or participated in the relevant policies.

"Plaintiffs ask the court to determine how much, if anything, each
of them -- and/or the insurer defendants -- may presently owe to
Amtrak, and how to interpret their policies going forward with
respect to currently pending and expected future claims against
Amtrak," the complaint said.

While Amtrak is seeking indemnification from the insurers on a
slew of environmental claims, three remediation projects comprise
a majority of its exposure, the suit said, including Sunnyside
Yard in Queens, New York.

Sunnyside Yard, a 100-acre maintenance and storage facility,
suffers from widespread contamination from train fuel and
polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, among other hazardous
substances. The insurers allege that Amtrak has entered into
settlements with state environmental regulators and the train
yard's former owner on a multiyear cleanup effort but failed to
include the insurers in those discussions.

The two other Amtrak environmental remediation projects
highlighted in the complaint also involve PCB cleanup efforts:
Penn Station in Manhattan and a former fueling facility in
Wilmington, Delaware, known as the Wilmington Shops site.

The insurers also dispute their obligation to cover Amtrak for
indemnity and defense payments linked to asbestos personal injury
claims. Those claims, which have been filed at a steady clip since
1972, including hundreds in New York courts alone, accuse Amtrak
of exposing workers and others to asbestos contained in insulation
for equipment, friction product in machinery and brakes, gaskets,
and firewalls, according to the suit.

The insurers similarly want to avoid covering Amtrak for a variety
of other health hazard claims, including lawsuits from employees
over repetitive stress injury, hearing loss and exposure to other
"deleterious substances" like diesel fumes and solvents.

Other insurers joining Lloyd's as plaintiffs in the suit include
Accident & Casualty Insurance Co. of Winterthur, American Home
Insurance Co., Argonaut Northwest Insurance Co., National Casualty
Co. and Terra Nova Insurance Co.

The Amtrak insurers named as defendants in the suit include
Continental Insurance Co., Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., The
Hartford Accident and Insurance Co., Hassneh Insurance Co. of
Israel Ltd. and Interstate Reinsurance Corp.

A representative for Amtrak could not be reached for comment after
business hours.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ronald Abramson of Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al. v.
National Railroad Passenger Corp., case number 1:14-cv-04717, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Man Spared Prison in Fibro Fraud Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reported that a man from North Tonawanda, New
York, was spared prison on his misdemeanor conviction as an
accessory to false asbestos reporting in the Kensington Towers
Apartment complex abatement project.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara ordered Brian Scott, 34, a
former air-sampling technician and project monitor for JMD
Environmental Inc., to serve a year of probation.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron J. Mango said Scott is the second
defendant to be sentenced in the case alleging violations of the
Clean Air Act. Seven others face sentencing for the false
reporting of asbestos cleanup at the six buildings in the
Kensington Towers complex in Buffalo, from June 2009 to Jan. 11,
2010.

While officials of Johnson Contracting of WNY Inc. reported
falsely that all floor tiles with asbestos had been removed from
the buildings, Scott was aware that they had not been removed and
supported the false claims, authorities said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northey Street Soil Testing Finds Fibro, Lead
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Stephens, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that lead,
asbestos and arsenic has been detected during a soil testing
conducted by the city council for Brisbane, Australia, at Northey
Street City Farm.

The popular inner-north organic farm was given the go ahead to
reopen, six weeks after it was closed, but only after it
implements a number of measures to minimise health risks.  But
farming team manager Dick Copeman said it remained unclear whether
the findings would enable the two hectare city farm to retain its
organic certification.

"We notified the organic certifier when the original issue arose,
if we want to maintain that status we will have to come up with a
management plan," he said.

"It's looking reasonably optimistic for the future but it's just a
bit of hard work to get there."

Mr Copeman and representatives of the farm met with council
officers to find out exactly what had been found to be
contaminating its soil.  Measures that need to be undertaken to
pave the way for re-opening include raising garden beds and
filling them with clean, externally-sourced soil, grassing open
areas to reduce airborne dust particles and washing and peeling
fruit and vegetables grown at the site before use.

Independent council testing confirmed there was lead and asbestos
in the garden soil as well as arsenic, chromium and benzene in the
ash of a fire pit on site.

Queensland Health analysed the findings and recommended a
management plan to limit potential health risks.  The site will
remain closed until farm managers can present a plan to the
council for approval.

Mr Copeman said though there was plenty of information in the
reports to read and digest, he hoped the farm could reopen within
the next couple of weeks.

"Our initial impression is that, while some areas of the site were
found to be contaminated by asbestos and some heavy metals, the
site will be able to be managed in the future in a way that is
without risk," he said.

"No contamination was detected in the areas used by the farm's
playgroups and children's art activities.

"There is also no indication that the farm's produce has been
contaminated.

"One area away from the gardens that has significant contamination
will be remediated by the council."

The farm hosts a hugely popular organic farmer's market, which has
continued throughout the period of the farm's closure.

Fruit and vegetables at the site are cultivated for sale by both
the farm managers and community members, who grow their own
produce in nearly 50 plots.

In a statement, the council's Parks and Environment Chairman
Matthew Bourke said the council would offer assistance to the farm
managers once they had developed their management plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Worker's Widow Sues Over Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that the
widow of a former shipyard worker who allegedly died from
asbestosis and mesothelioma lung cancer due to asbestos exposure
is suing for wrongful death.

Shirely Holmes filed suit against Huntington Ingalls Incorporated,
Avondale Industries, Avondale Shipyard, Albert Bossier Jr.,
Onebeacon America Insurance Company, American Employers Insurance
Company, Eagle Inc., Foster-Wheeler LLC, Maryland Casualty
Company, The Dox Chemical Company, 3M Company, ANCO Insulations
Inc. and CBS Corporation in the 24th Judicial District Court on
June 30.

Holmes contends that her husband Kermit A. Holmes, who died on
Sept. 2, 2013, worked at the Avondale shipyard in the early 1970s
where he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers that later led to
his contraction of asbestosis and mesothelioma lung cancer. The
plaintiff alleges that during her husband's employment with the
shipyard he was not provided with proper safety equipment,
including disposable overalls and on-site showers, that could have
lessened the chance of his illness. Holmes claims that those in
charge of the facility should have known about the dangers
surrounding asbestos exposure.

The defendant is accused of failing to reveal and concealing
critical information, failing to reveal and concealing inherent
dangers of the use of asbestos, failing to provide necessary
protection, failing to provide proper ventilation and wanton and
reckless disregard in storage and handling of asbestos.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for survival action and
wrongful death.

Holmes is represented by Kevin C. Schoenberger of New Orleans-
based Law Office of Kevin C. Schoenberger.

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

Case no. 739-908.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Plans to Leave Fibro Remnants in Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
Gwyneth Hyndman, writing for The Western News, reported that a
recent discussion between the Environmental Protection Agency and
a representative of Lincoln County, in Oregon, had the local
health board up in arms over fears that the agency could pass the
financial responsibility of asbestos contamination onto homeowners
and future real estate developers.

Nick Raines, manager of Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program,
who represented the county in a meeting with the EPA, updated the
Lincoln County Health Board on the EPA's plans for the final
stages of the asbestos clean-up effort.

While EPA officials said in June that they were about three years
away from completing large-scale, on-the-ground operations, no
exit date has been given.  Raines said Libby, Montana, is still in
the remedial investigation phase, which is not far from where the
EPA started in 1999. Normally, a risk assessment would be done
before a clean-up began. However 15 years later, Libby is still
waiting on toxicology results before a risk assessment can be
done. Raines said the toxicology results and risk assessment would
be completed by the end of 2014.

After after Raines passed out a summary of a meeting in Helena
between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the EPA
and the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program, the county
health board members had a few minutes to go over the points of
when the EPA would consider asbestos clean-up complete.

Immediately, health board members began expressing alarm at what
they were told was a "benchmark" for a final decision.

"A lot of things here raise red flags," board member and Libby
Mayor Doug Roll said. "This is ridiculous, I'll put it bluntly."
The meeting notes refer to a draft document written by EPA
remedial project leader Rebecca Thomas, which was used as a
guideline in the July meeting between Raines and the EPA.

According to notes on the document -- which has not been finalized
-- cleanup would be considered complete by the EPA if vermiculite
insulation remained in sealed or inaccessible areas such as wall
cavaties, and closed-off attic areas. Outside, cleanup would be
checked off as complete if the asbestos was in low concentrations.
It would also be considered complete if there was a slightly
higher level of asbestos that was covered by a sufficient layer of
top soil.

As far as maintaining the cleanup, property owners would be
responsible for managing "remnant" vermiculite when encountered.
Institutional Controls (IC) would only get involved to help remove
contamination if it came directly from the mine site and was not a
commercially available product.  Notes on the document also says
property owners and/or developers will be responsible for managing
contamination that remains at the surface if the property use is
changed or developed.  Furthermore, if the property was
undeveloped and contamination was left at the surface because it
was a field and considered low-use, anyone who wanted to develop
that field would be responsible for meeting the EPA clean-up
criteria for higher-use.

Raines said he had told agency heads during the Helena meeting
that people in Lincoln County would not accept financial
responsibility for managing contamination left in-place.  The
response from the EPA and the DEQ, he said, was that this approach
is similar to other Superfund sites.

The EPA has maintained that it will always have a presence in
Libby, but this could just be by doing assessments every five
years.  In the meeting, health board members said assessments
could lead to further conflicts on who is responsible if asbestos
is found. This would be especially true if the county signed off
on a remedial plan that was difficult to regulate.

One issue that was immediately apparent was that it would be
extremely difficult to differentiate between commercial insulation
and insulation that was from the mine site, if it was discovered
in homes. This would make it easy for the IC to opt out of getting
involved.

Berget said he would not feel comfortable signing off to something
he knew wasn't going to happen.

Brad Black, board member and medical director for Center for
Asbestos Related Diseases, said overall, the strategy would be a
huge financial impact on homeowners.

"There would be huge losses to people in the community," Black
said. "This is a horrible strategy . . . we all sense that re-
entry of materials is going to occur."

Board member and Lincoln County Commissioner Tony Berget said what
they were reading was clearly not what had been spelled out in
"comfort letters" to Libby area residents in previous years,
promising that costs would not fall back on homeowners.

The EPA had set aside $11 million for cleanup, but board members
said this was not enough.

Board member Allen Payne said what was being presented was
frustrating.

"We were given the assurance there would be resources -- we didn't
understand the resources were the homeowners," Payne said.

Raines said the meetings had been informational, and no decision
had been made on a final action plan. The purpose was to provide
information to the community leaders in Libby and Troy so that the
EPA could receive feedback.

The next meeting on the EPA cleanup action will be held in
September.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Issued After Fly-Tipping
-------------------------------------------------------
James Watkins, writing for getsurrey.com.uk, reported that
material containing asbestos has been dumped near to a Guildford
pond on Surrey Wildlife Common, in England.

Guildford Borough Council is investigating the issue, and believes
it could have been left along Keen's Lane on Chitty's Common in
Worplesdon on July 28 or July 29.

The bags were left around one metre away from the pond at the
Surrey Wildlife Trust common, and yellow tape warning of asbestos
had been put around them, before it was removed.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to cancer and scarring of the lungs.
It is safe if undamaged or undisturbed, but needs to be disposed
of correctly.

A spokesman for the borough council said they were looking for any
information relating to suspicious vehicle movements seen in the
area around July 28 and July 29.

"We are aware of the issue and it has been passed onto our
specialist contractors to deal with," the spokesman said.

"In this case it was reported to us on July 29 . . ."

"There is very little indication as to where this came from and
who left it there."

Surrey Wildlife Trust said it was also aware of the asbestos, and
warned of the dangers of fly-tipping in general.

"Asbestos fibres are so small that they cannot be seen by the
naked eye or even by normal household microscopes, but when
asbestos is dumped and released into the environment it
contaminates the air, where it can be inhaled, water, where it can
be ingested, and soil," a spokesman for the trust said.

"Asbestos dust can easily travel for long distances in the air
before it settles into water or on top of soil, thus contaminating
areas far away from its source.

"The small asbestos fibres remain intact in air, water and soil.
It does not break down or biodegrade.

"The fibres do not absorb into the soil and instead sit on top of
the soil, where it can easily be disturbed and redistributed into
the air, which will have an impact on native flora.

"It can also settle on the surface of the soil instead of getting
absorbed into the ground, which means that it can still get picked
up by the wind and inhaled into human lungs, which pose the
biggest risks.

"Fly-tipping can be harmful to wildlife and the environment, as
animals can get stuck inside discarded waste, and chemicals in
items such as paint, battery acid and pesticide and leach into the
ground and waterways.

"It can crush wild flowers and may introduce non-native species
that may take over the natural environment," the spokesman said.

"Even the most innocent dumping of a few grass clippings
encourages others to do the same.

"This can result in household refuse also being dumped."

Up until February this year, there had been more than 5,600
incidents of fly-tipping reported in Guildford in the previous
five years.

Asbestos must be removed by a licensed company, and in Guildford
some types can be disposed of at the Guildford Community Recycling
Centre at Slyfield Industrial Estate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Wrapping Up Cleanup at Stamp Mill Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Roblee, writing for The Daily Mining Gazette, reported that an
approximately $120,000 Environmental Protection Agency asbestos
cleanup project at the abandoned Tamarack City Stamp Mill, in
Minnesota, should be wrapped up.

The project will leave the Tamarack City neighborhood safer for
residents and visitors, and create an opportunity for a possible
new heritage site for the Keweenaw National Historical Park. Along
with the EPA, the project involves cooperation from Osceola
Township, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the
National Park Service.

"Asbestos was the primary concern, with the Tamarack City Park and
residents next door," said Brian Kelly, the EPA's on-site
coordinator. "The EPA and DEQ sometimes get criticism, but I think
we've done a good job here."

Kelly told The Daily Mining Gazette of Houghton the stamp mill was
posted with no trespassing signs, but there was nothing physically
preventing children from the adjacent park or curiosity seekers
from exploring the ruins. There was also a concern that
deterioration could allow asbestos to become airborne.

Asbestos is a silicate mineral formerly used in insulation,
roofing and other construction applications that can cause lung
cancer, mesothelioma and other illnesses when inhaled.

Osceola Township Supervisor Steve Karpiak said he's been pleased
with the EPA's work at the township-owned site, adding the EPA
paid nearly the entire cost of the project.

"It hasn't cost the township anything except for the water," he
said. "It makes the area safer, though we'll still have no
trespassing signs and don't want people roaming through."

That could change in the future, he added. The township has been
working with Steve DeLong of Keweenaw National Historical Park on
having the stamp mill, which Karpiak said was originally
associated with the Osceola Mine, designated as one of KNHP's
cooperating historic sites.

The park service has been involved throughout, and "gave
recommendations on how to preserve the nature of the site," Kelly
said.  He said the cleanup has taken about two weeks for him and a
group of seven contractors, but the process began last summer and
involved input from the township and the DEQ.

Amy Keranen, an environmental quality analyst with the DEQ based
in Calumet, said the DEQ's Upper Peninsula office first saw the
results of asbestos sampling taken by the Lansing Superfund office
late last June, and has been in communication with the EPA ever
since.

Kelly said the EPA did further testing last fall, and he worked to
secure necessary agreements and funding over the winter. Earlier
this summer, specialists determined the extent of the problem and
specific locations of asbestos. Much of it was in pipe insulation
and roofing, some of which had become scattered.

"A lot of the roofing materials were just laying around," he said.

Early in the project, crews were forced to wear hazmat protective
suits and respirators to ensure their own safety as the asbestos
was disturbed during excavation, Kelly said. They also collected
air samples and checked them twice daily to make sure they weren't
creating a short-term airborne asbestos problem.

Kelly said the mill was closed in 1968, then sold to owners who
blew up parts of it to access residual metals and scrap. The EPA
is sometimes able to assign liability to former owners and recover
remediation costs, but he said that's unlikely in this case due to
changes in ownership and the death of former owners.  He said
excavation is now complete, and workers are now cleaning up the
site and smoothing over buried debris.

During the process, Kelly said, the crew found a variety of
artifacts, including wrenches, drills, a motor and crushing balls
from the stamping process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Workers Ask High Court to Remand Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, reported that former workers
at the Pearl Harbor shipyard have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review a Ninth Circuit decision refusing to remand two asbestos
suits to state court, alleging the decision allows expert
testimony too much sway in determining federal jurisdiction over
private contractors.

The Ninth Circuit in April refused to remand the suits to Hawaii
state court, finding that federal jurisdiction was appropriate
because the company had allegedly acted under the direction of the
U.S. Navy. The three-judge panel found that Crane had satisfied
all of the requirements under the federal officer removal statute,
which allows for a removal of a civil action related to acts taken
by a defendant while under the direction of a federal officer.

In a July 31 certiorari petition, plaintiff Douglas Leite argued
that the Ninth Circuit had failed to look at the language of Navy
specifications Crane claimed prevented it from warning about the
dangers of asbestos and that the court solely relied on experts'
affidavits to determine whether the Navy regulations were specific
enough to allow removal to federal court.

"If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit's decision opens the door
to unlimited federal officer removal jurisdiction for any private
contractor who can procure an expert willing to testify that its
actions in violation of state law were governed by 'detailed'
federal regulations," according to the petition.

The plaintiffs -- Leite and David Thompson -- were both machinists
at the naval shipyard and sued Crane and a host of other companies
in state court for allegedly failing to warn them of the health
risks of the asbestos in the equipment that the defendants sold to
the Navy.

Crane asserted the government contractor defense to the
plaintiffs' claims and held that it had eschewed asbestos warnings
at the direction of the Navy. To back this up, it provided
affidavits from experts on Navy policies concerning the warnings
equipment manufacturers were supposed to provide, according to the
Ninth Circuit opinion.

The affidavits said the Navy issued detailed specifications
governing the form and content of asbestos warnings, but the
regulations were vague and didn't address asbestos warnings,
according to the petition. The only detailed Navy specifications
on warnings explicitly authorized manufacturers to give state-law
warnings, the plaintiffs argued.

Allowing an expert witness to testify about the meaning of a
federal regulation or contract runs counter to federal evidentiary
law, according to the petition.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that a causal nexus between Crane's
failure to warn and Navy authority existed, supporting removal of
the case to federal court, solely based on Crane's contention that
it had acted under the direction of a federal officer, according
to the petition.

No evidence was presented to support the causal nexus, the
plaintiffs argued. Crane, as a private contractor, had to at least
show that its failure to warn about asbestos dangers was directed
by a federal officer for federal removal to be permissible,
according to the petition.

Counsel for the parties could not be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by L. Richard DeRobertis, Gary O.
Galiher and Diane T. Ono of Galiher DeRobertis Ono.

Crane is represented by Michael J. Ross, Nicholas P. Vari and
Michael J. Zukowski of K&L Gates LLP.

The case is Leite et al. v. Crane Co. et al, case number 14-119,
in the Supreme Court of the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walney Residents Demand Action Over Fibro Fear
---------------------------------------------------------------
in-cumbria.com reported that derelict garages could pose a serious
health risk, worried residents in Walney, England, have claimed.
They fear broken roof tiles in Avon Street garages on Walney may
have exposed people to asbestos dust.  Exposure to asbestos dust
can cause serious illness, even terminal cancer such as
mesothelioma.

During the summer holidays children have been playing in the
garages, which are also littered with potentially hazardous
debris.  Maureen Slater, of Orion Terrace has been trying to get
the land cleared for four years. She said: "I've approached
councillors, the fire service, and environmental health. I got a
residents' petition and I submitted that to local MP John
Woodcock, the fire service and police. Nothing has been done."

Cumbria Asbestos Related Disease Support Group says urgent action
should be taken to get the site cleared and warn the public.
Having inspected the garages, Cards estimates 21 out of the 72
garages pose a risk of asbestos.

Julie Clarke, a member of the Cards steering group, said: "I first
contacted Barrow Borough Council, environmental health and Furness
Lettings in 2011 regarding asbestos sheeting and broken sheets
lying in the allotments and garages and was informed it would be
removed. Some of the sheets were taken and assurances were given
that the garages were due to be repaired.

"None of this work was carried out. I have recently been
approached by worried residents regarding these garages as local
children are playing both on the broken roofs and inside the
garages where broken asbestos and dust is lying."

Furness Property Letting and Management, which represents the
landlord of Avon Street garages, said steps had been taken to
remove any potentially harmful asbestos. A contractor who
specialises in the removal of asbestos started work on July 16.

Director of the company, Caroline Metcalfe said: "The landlord
will be attending Avon Street in August to plan the schedule of
works with the contractor to refurbish the remaining asbestos
garage roofs.

"The contractor used specialises in removal of asbestos and has
method statement, risk assessments in place and has undertaken
training in asbestos awareness courses. I have again instructed
the contractor to remove any asbestos off the site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Company Revealed to Have Used Fibro in NSW
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Smith, writing for ABC News, reported that a third company
used potentially deadly loose-fill asbestos to insulate homes in
New South Wales, it has been revealed.

Hundreds of Canberra and New South Wales homeowners had loose-fill
asbestos pumped into their roof spaces in the 1960s and 70s by the
Mr Fluffy company.

Another company, Bowsers Asphalt Ltd of Rozelle, has previously
been identified as using asbestos in a similar manner as far north
as Sydney.

An investigation by RN's Background Briefing has now revealed New
South Wales Health knows of a third unnamed company using the
asbestos in the state's south-west.

The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency's Peter Tigh said a
total of 1,100 so-called Mr Fluffy homes have been identified.
But he warned there could be many more with loose-fill asbestos.

"New South Wales Health records indicate that a different
contractor is known to have used this material in the south
western region of New South Wales, and perhaps other areas in the
late 60s," he said.

The department has said there are no details on the unknown
contractor.  There is also no complete survey of the homes
affected outside the ACT.

"A similar contractor would have similar numbers of installation
jobs in New South Wales," Mr Tigh said.

"If (the company) was working in Sydney, the market base here was
probably higher than what you'd have in the ACT."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Holds Up Renovation at Marietta City Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Shawver, writing for The Marietta Times, reported that the
city hall renovation project in Marietta, Georgia, was extended
another 20 days during the regular meeting of Marietta City
Council. Several thousand dollars worth of change orders were also
added to the project's total cost.

"There was a point during construction that asbestos was
discovered in the building and work had to be stopped until the
material could be removed, so now we're extending the time for the
work to be completed, which will be no extra cost to the city,"
said Councilman Harley Noland, D-at large, who chairs council's
lands, buildings and parks committee.

Contractor Grae-Con Construction will now have until Aug. 29 to
finish the $2.8 million-plus project.

Two other pieces of legislation passed by council regarding the
city hall project will have some cost to the city.

Noland said crews working to turn a former boiler room area of the
building into storage space ran into a huge chunk of soil and
concrete that would have to be removed to complete that area,
adding another $7,500 to the project cost.

In addition, a sidewalk has to be excavated in order to reopen a
clogged storm drain outside the city hall building. Council
approved $8,000 for that project.

In other business, council approved another $8,000 for
construction of a picnic pavilion at Flanders Field in the Harmar
district.

Councilman Tom Vukovic, D-4th Ward, said the project would be a
cooperative effort.

"The Washington County Career Center is building the project, and
the Kiwanis Club gave us a huge donation of $3,500 toward
construction of the pavilion," he said.

Also, council approved $118,432 to replace a water line under the
Seventh, Pike and Greene streets intersection which is currently
undergoing a pedestrian and traffic safety improvement upgrade.

"We didn't want to tear up the new pavement to do this project
after the intersection work is completed," said Councilman Steve
Thomas, D-3rd Ward. "This will save money for the city."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Pushes for Fibro Education Guide
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Walsh, writing for Illawara Mercury, reported that the city
council in Wollongong, Australia, plans to develop a list of
asbestos disposal companies that can advertise their services on
the council's website.  The council will also endorse an asbestos
education program developed by the Asbestos Education Committee,
if recommendations put to the council meeting are adopted.

Cr Jill Merrin said measures to educate Wollongong residents on
asbestos disposal and removal should have been in place already
given the council resolved to produce an education guide and carry
out a publicity campaign for it last September.

"All of the councillors were unanimous in expressing their
concerns about the effects of asbestos on people's health and
believed council should and could do more to protect the health of
Wollongong residents."

Cr Merrin originally put forward a motion last August that a
report investigating the possibility of collecting and disposing
of the dangerous waste at the Whytes Gully tip be tabled.

A further study by consultants found establishing a disposal or
transfer station at the site was not feasible due to size and time
constraints and a projected loss of $1.76 million in the first
year.

Cr Merrin said she would like to "strengthen" some of the
recommendations at the meeting.

"I'll be promoting going back to the transfer station and
continuing to carry out the resolutions of a year ago about an
education guide and a publicity program," Cr Merrin said.

The recommendations include providing a link to WorkCover's
listing of licensed asbestos disposal contractors on council's
website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bures Pensioner Dies from Fibro-Related Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Free Press reported that a woman from Bures, in England,
died from an asbestos-related condition two decades after she was
last known to be exposed to the material, an inquest has heard.

Caroline MacMillan, 71, a retired secretary of Sudbury Road, had
been diagnosed with mesothelioma in December last year.  She died
at her home on July 14 and a post mortem examination confirmed the
hospital diagnosis, the inquest at Bury St Edmunds was told.

Suffolk Coroner Dr Peter Dean said reports showed two possible
sources of exposure to asbestos for Mrs MacMillan.

One was a boatyard on the River Blackwater in Essex where she
worked as a secretary between 1973 and 1996 and where the
buildings had asbestos roofs.

Dr Dean said the second possibility was the boiler room of the
yacht on which Mrs MacMillan and her husband Michael lived between
1970 and 1982 which was next to the cabin.

The coroner said: "It is believed that one or other or both could
be the source of the asbestos."

Dr Dean recorded a conclusion that Mrs MacMillan died from
mesothelioma as a result of previous contact with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doncaster Family Makes Fibro Death Plea
--------------------------------------------------------
Thorne and District Gazette reported that former workmates of a
woman from Doncaster, England, who died from a rare industrial
disease could hold vital clues to how she may have contracted it,
say her family.  Shouna English died less than a month after she
was diagnosed with a lung disease caused by a deadly dust.  The
family of the former factory worker, who died from the asbestos-
related cancer, are now appealing for her former colleagues to
come forward to help with an investigation into how she was
exposed to the 'silent killer'.

Mrs English, who lived in Rossington, died in February 2013 aged
69, just three weeks after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a
cancer in the lining of the lungs.

An inquest was held last October and the diagnosis of mesothelioma
was confirmed.  Her family have now instructed asbestos lawyers at
Sheffield law firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate when and where
she was exposed to the material and to find out if more could have
been done to protect her. The family said: "We hope that anyone
who thinks they can help will get in touch with our legal team as
quickly as possible.

During the 1960s, Shouna, who was also known as Sally, worked for
Glass Bulbs, which has now been dissolved, at their factory on
Snape Lane in Harworth, Doncaster.

Working in the main part of the factory, her job was to pack bulbs
from a conveyor belt which was made of asbestos and carried hot
glass products. She also wore asbestos gloves on a daily basis and
worked with asbestos tape and friction pads.

As Shouna worked in the main part of the factory, she may have
also worked in the close vicinity of heating and plumbing
engineers, who regularly carried out repair and maintenance work
to the pipes, which were lagged with wet-mix asbestos cement.

At the time of her employment, Rossington was populated with many
migrant workers from Scotland and the North East -- Shouna herself
was originally from Scotland and she spoke with a Scottish accent.

The family are now appealing for Shouna's former work colleagues
to come forward with any information about working conditions
there.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sheets Left Dumped on Standon Footpath
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy Dinham, writing for Hertfordshire Mercury, reported that a
dangerous eye-sore has been plaguing an estate in Standon,
England, after sheets of asbestos were left next to a public
pathway off the A120.

The material has been linked to causing lung cancer and other
illnesses but has been left near people's properties for over
three weeks now.

Children are known to play on the track, behind Stortford Road,
which is also used as the main point of access for residents due
to the busy main road nearby.

Various requests have been made to East Herts Council to have it
removed but the council claim that they are unable to do so.

"We have explained to the resident that the material is on private
land and so it's the landowner's responsibility to clear it, as it
is with all fly-tips," a council spokesperson said.

"We are however helping her to trace the owner of the land and we
can then write to that person telling them that the waste is
considered to be a fly-tip and needs to be removed."

The identiy of the offending fly-tipper is unknown but in its
current state the asbestos poses minimal health risks as it is not
damaged or crumbling.  The slabs may have been left there as the
material will be turned away from any public skips or recylcling
disposal centres.

Parent and resident Tanya Kitscha is annoyed however at how slow
the process of removal has been,

"All of my neighbours have been very concerned about it," she
said.

"I have a lot of elderly neighbours who are not the type to
formally complain but they have spoken to me about it.

"It really makes me angry that somebody was sneaky enough to just
leave it there and then disappear."

Despite the fact regulations were tightened in the late 1980s,
Mesothelioma -- a malignant tumour of the lung lining -- is still
still on the increase in the UK, killing 1,800 people per year.

Scientists predict the peak figures will be between 2015 and 2020,
when that number will rise to 2,000.

Mrs Kitscha received an email from Waste Aware Hertfordshire, a
county-wide council partnership promoting waste issues on August 7
telling them that it was they would come and remove it but so far
nothing has been done.

She added that, even though the offence falls outside the
council's remit, she was disappointed at the lack of urgency shown
by authorities.

"From the point of view that they did not see it as a danger, I
feel quite let down," she said.

"They told me it was nothing to do with them and it would be left
there.

"My daughter will sometimes go out there and play, and people take
their pets for walks along the track all the time.

"It's also used a lot by the community, we even had our jubillee
and Royal Wedding celebrations out there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped in North Rocks, Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Hills News reported that the council in Hills, Australia, and
specialist crews have spent cleaning up what is believed to be an
illegal dumping of asbestos at North Rocks.  They responded after
receiving a report of building materials found strewn along
Loyalty Road.

Crews wearing special suits bagged what they could and watered
down the roadway to prevent any perceived asbestos particles from
escaping into the air.  They will continue to work on cleaning up
the area until it is considered safe.

Council is investigating the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Extends Bar Date for Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chiappardi, writing for Law360, reported that bankrupt Energy
Future Holdings Corp. said that it would extend its proposed
claims bar date by 30 days, responding to criticism from five
personal injury law firms that argued the deadline would strip
asbestos claimants of their due process rights, but the power
giant would not eliminate the cutoff altogether.

In a motion before the Delaware bankruptcy court, EFH also said it
would modify its notice procedures to include more information
about asbestos-related claims and publish a specific notice
regarding the substance to address concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asian Countries Continue to Use Fibro Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Daigle, writing for The Associated Press, reported that the
executives mingled over tea and sugar cookies, and the chatter was
upbeat. Their industry, they said at a conference in the Indian
capital, saves lives and brings roofs, walls and pipes to some of
the world's poorest people.

Their product? Asbestos. Outlawed in much of the developed world,
it is still going strong in the developing one. In India alone,
the world's biggest asbestos importer, it's a $2 billion industry
providing 300,000 jobs.

The International Labor Organization, World Health Organization,
medical researchers and more than 50 countries say the mineral
should be banned; asbestos fibers lodge in the lungs and cause
disease. The ILO estimates 100,000 people die from workplace
exposure every year.

But the industry executives at the asbestos conference, held in a
luxury New Delhi hotel, said the risks are overblown.

Instead, they described their business as a form of social welfare
for hundreds of thousands of impoverished Indians still living in
flimsy, mud-and-thatch huts.

"We're here not only to run our businesses, but to also serve the
nation," said Abhaya Shankar, a director of India's Asbestos
Cement Products Manufacturers Association.

Yet there are some poor Indians trying to keep asbestos out of
their communities.

In the farming village of Vaishali, in the eastern state of Bihar,
residents became outraged by the construction of an asbestos
factory in their backyard.

They had learned about the dangers of asbestos from a school boy's
science textbooks, and worried asbestos fibers would blow into
their tiny thatch homes. Their children, they said, could contract
lung diseases most Indian doctors would never test for, let alone
treat.

They petitioned for the factory to be halted. But in December
2012, its permit was renewed, inciting thousands to rally on a
main road for 11 hours. Amid the chaos, a few dozen villagers
demolished the partially built factory.

"It was a moment of desperation," a teacher said on condition of
anonymity for fear of retribution from the company. "There was no
other way for us to express our outrage." The company later filed
lawsuits, still pending, accusing several villagers of vandalism
and theft.

Durable and heat-resistant, asbestos was long a favorite
insulation material in the West.

Medical experts say inhaling any form of asbestos can lead to
deadly diseases 20-40 years later including lung cancer,
mesothelioma and asbestosis, or the scarring of the lungs.

Dozens of countries including Japan, Argentina and all European
Union nations have banned it entirely. Others like the U.S. have
severely curtailed its use.

The asbestos lobby says the mineral has been unfairly maligned by
Western nations that used it irresponsibly. It also says one of
the six forms of asbestos is safe: chrysotile, or white asbestos,
which accounts for more than 95 percent of all asbestos used since
1900.

Medical experts reject this.

"All types of asbestos fiber are causally implicated in the
development of various diseases and premature death," the
Societies of Epidemiology said in a 2012 position statement.

Russia now provides most asbestos on the world market. Meanwhile,
rich nations are suffering health and economic consequences from
past use.

American businesses have paid out at least $1.3 billion in the
largest collection of personal injury lawsuits in U.S. legal
history. Billions have been spent stripping asbestos from
buildings in the

Umesh Kumar, a roadside vendor in Bihar's capital, has long known
there are health hazards to the 3-by-1 meter (10-by-3 foot)
asbestos cement sheets he sells for 600 rupees ($10) each. But he
doesn't guide customers to the 800 rupee tin or fiberglass
alternatives.

"This is a country of poor people, and for less money they can
have a roof over their heads," he said.

The two-day asbestos conference in December was billed as
scientific, though organizers admitted they had no new research.

One could say they've gone back in time to defend asbestos.

The Indian lobby's website refers to 1998 WHO guidelines for
controlled use of chrysotile, but skips updated WHO advice from
2007 suggesting all asbestos be banned. Its executive director,
John Nicodemus, dismissed the WHO update as "scaremongering."

Many of the speakers are regulars at asbestos conferences in the
developing world.

Toxicologist David Bernstein said that while chrysotile could
cause disease if inhaled in large quantities or for prolonged
periods, so could any tiny particle. Bernstein consulted for the
Quebec-based Chrysotile Institute, which lost its Canadian
government funding in 2012.

He presented an animated video showing a type of white blood cell
called a macrophage breaking down a chrysotile fiber and carrying
it out of the lungs.

"We have defense mechanisms. Our lungs are remarkable," Bernstein
said.

Other studies indicate, however, that chrysotile collects in the
membrane lining the lungs, where the rare malignancy mesothelioma
develops and chews through the chest wall, leading to excruciating
death.

Research such as Bernstein's frustrates retired U.S. Assistant
Surgeon General Dr. Richard Lemen, who first advocated a
chrysotile ban in 1976.

"His presentation is pretty slick, and when he puts it on
animation mode, people think: Wow, he must know what he's talking
about," Lemen said by telephone from Atlanta.

In Vaishali, the permit for the asbestos plant was canceled by
Bihar's chief minister last year. But Indian officials remain
divided and confused about the risks.

India placed a moratorium on new asbestos mining in 1986, but
never banned use of the mineral despite two Supreme Court orders.

The position of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's new government is
unclear.

Meanwhile, Vaishali's resistance has sparked other protests,
including in the nearby district of Bhojpur.

"Many people are not aware of the effects, especially the
illiterate," said Madan Prasad Gupta, a village leader in Bhojpur,
sipping tea at the roadside tea shop he built decades ago when he
had no idea what asbestos was.

Over his head: a broken, crumbling asbestos cement roof.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Under Fire Over Botched Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid Devon Gazette reported that the district council of Mid Devon,
in England, could face legal action after reports that Crediton
residents may have been exposed to lethal brown asbestos.  It
happened when MDDC contractors were removing soffits (boards under
the eaves of houses) at Brays Close in Crediton.

Brays Close made headlines in January 2013 when one of its
residents, Peter Bearder, 67, claimed that his flat was riddled
with blue asbestos.

Now information has come to light that suggests MDDC contractor
Phil Squires did not take proper precautions in removing offending
materials.

In 2012 MDDC's contractor said the material in the soffits was
asbestolux, a form of insulation used in construction until 1980.

Cllr John Downes, whose Boniface ward includes Brays Court, was
assured that the material was within 'safe' limits and did not
need special licensing to be removed.

This was supported by Cllr Neil Sanderson, then head of housing
and property services, who wrote to Cllr Downes in 2012.

However, independent tests done on site during the most recent
work found that the soffits contained amocite, also known as brown
asbestos -- the second most dangerous form of asbestos. It was
commonly used as a fire retardant in thermal insulation.

It was banned from use in construction in 1985, and banned from
being imported into Britain in 1999.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are now deciding whether to
bring criminal charges against MDDC because the contractors were
in breach of regulations.

If found guilty, the council could face a hefty fine and possible
lawsuits from individual tenants at Brays Court.

Cllr Downes was keen to emphasise the isolated nature of this
incident.

"MDDC has a strong record in removing asbestos in the proper
manner.

"Ongoing work at Brays Court has been carried out correctly and
with full regard for regulations."

He was, however, unable to shed any light on why Phil Squires had
not reported the brown asbestos two years earlier.

"If they were aware that asbestolux contained brown asbestos, it
puzzles me as to why they did not inform MDDC, and continued their
work without proper licensing."

Other councillors, however, have been quick to criticise MDDC's
handling of the situation.

"It's a disaster" said Cllr Kevin Wilson, who represents the
Cranmore ward.

"This should never have got to this stage in the first place. It
should have been nipped in the bud long ago."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probes Illegal Removal of Fibro in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Scott Smith, writing for MLive.com, reported that agents with
the Environmental Protection Agency's criminal unit are
investigating potential asbestos disposal violations at the site
of the former Michigan School of the Blind, according to the
Ingham County Land Bank and the Michigan Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.

The agents, some wearing head-to-toe hazmat suits, showed up at
the site in north Lansing, about six blocks east of the Old Town
commercial district.

Sources told MLive they are investigating potential violations by
Lansing contractor MAC Contracting, LLC. Officials at MAC
Contracting could not be reached for comment by phone, and no one
would talk about the issue during a visit to the business at 1408
Lake Lansing Road.

Bob McAnallen is listed as the registered agent for MAC on
incorporation papers filed with the state.

The Ingham County Land Bank, which owns the section of the complex
being investigated, hired MAC to remove asbestos from buildings
it's demolishing on the complex's perimeter, which is at the
corner of Willow and Princeton streets.

Land Bank executive director Jeff Burdick said it has suspended
its contract with MAC pending results of the federal
investigation.

"[The EPA] was out there collecting evidence for a criminal
investigation related to unsafe practices in how asbestos is
removed by employees," Burdick confirmed, adding once he heard
about the investigation, he immediately went to the site to talk
to EPA officials.

"They said that they received allegations from [MAC] employees and
they are collecting samples and they had a warrant in which to
investigate," he said.

The EPA declined to comment, citing that it is an ongoing
investigation.

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(MIOSHA) confirmed they too are conducting an inspection "of a
Michigan licensed asbestos abatement contractor MAC Contracting,
LLC at the former Michigan School for the Blind," said Andrea
Miller, a MIOSHA spokeswoman.

She said the EPA and Department of Environmental Quality opened
separate investigations on the site on April 2.

"In addition to inspecting MAC Contracting, MIOSHA also opened
inspections of the two owners of the property, the Ingham County
Land Bank and Preservation Non-Profit Housing Corporation," she
said. "MIOSHA will probably complete the inspections in about two
weeks."

Preservation, a subsidiary of the Great Lakes Capital Fund that
invests in developments that revitalize neighborhoods, does not
control the buildings involved in the investigation, but co-owns
the site with the Land Bank.

The School for the Blind opened at the site in 1915. Its most
famous alumnus is Motown legend and Saginaw native, Stevie Wonder.
The school closed its doors for good in 1995.

The city acquired the campus from the state in 2005 and has
restored two buildings, including the former library, home to the
Greater Lansing Housing Commission since 2011, and the former
Superintendents House, home to Rizzi Designs.

The area of the school that is under investigation is not
connected to the $15 million upgrade scheduled to begin in 2015
for the former school's main building, the Abigail Building,
announced on April 18. The demolition is a separate project.

"The main issue we have is time and we only have a certain amount
of time on that grant to get that building removed," Burdick said.
"So I'm trying to get information from the state on whether to
extend that grant."

"There is asbestos; these are old buildings, and we're trying to
get them removed," he added, stressing that these are only
allegations. "Removal has to happen prior to demolition. I don't
know what's true and what's not -- and that's why the EPA is
investigating -- as to whether the asbestos is being removed
properly and safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Admits Fibro Failings Put Workers at Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a United Kingdom National Health Services
trust in charge of three hospitals put workmen at risk to exposure
from asbestos for 11 years, a court has heard.

The West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust referred itself to the Health
and Safety Executive when a new member of staff raised concerns
about asbestos.

The trust runs hospitals in Hemel Hempstead, Watford and St
Albans.  It pleaded guilty to health and safety failings at St
Albans Crown Court and will be fined at a later date.

The court heard 47 staff who were involved in maintenance work at
the hospitals between 2000 and 2011 had been contacted.

'Real risk'

Prosecutor Adam Payter said none of the workers had developed an
asbestos-related illness, but added there was "a real risk they
may contract a disease in the future."

Mr Payter said there was "considerable potential for harm to
workers," and "the defendant was aware of the risks, but ignored
them".

In 2006, the trust was fined GBP17,000 by magistrates after
pleading guilty to two offences under the Health and Safety at
Work Act.

Colin McCaul QC, defending, said the trust had "been candid with
itself, the Health and Safety Executive, the court and public.

"The system now in operation is robust, comprehensive and easily
comprehensible. All asbestos has now been removed or contained. "

Judge Stephen Gullick said he will deliver his sentence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant Gets New Trial After $2.5MM Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the Delaware Supreme Court has found in favor of a talc
manufacturer in an asbestos case, concluding that the lower court
erred when it failed to grant a new trial after witnesses made
derogatory statements during testimony.

Justice Henry duPont Ridgely delivered the July 24 opinion with
justices Leo E. Strine and Randy J. Holland concurring.  Judge
Ridgely concluded that defendant RT Vanderbilt Company Inc. should
have been granted a new trial and reversed the Superior Court's
judgment.

Vanderbilt appealed after a jury in the lower court found the
defendant 100 percent liable and entered a verdict in favor of
plaintiff Darcel Galliher, individually and on behalf of the
estate of Michael Galliher, awarding her $2,864,583 plus interest.

Galliher filed the lawsuit in 2011. According to her complaint,
the decedent was employed by Borg Warner in Mannsfield, Ohio, at a
bathroom fixtures facility where he worked in the cast shop
filling ceramic molds from 1966 to 1968 and 1970 to 2005.

The decedent's employer's used talc mined, sold and distributed by
Vanderbilt to dust molds for the ceramics.

The claimants allege Galliher developed mesothelioma as a result
of exposure to the asbestos-containing talc provided by
Vanderbilt.

The decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2010 and
died in February 2011.

"Because the trial court erred in instructing the jury and abused
its discretion in denying Vanderbilt a new trial, we reverse the
judgment of the Superior Court and remand the case for a new
trial," the court concluded.

On appeal, Vanderbilt claimed the trial court erred when it failed
to instruct the jury on the duty of care required of Borg Warner,
as the decedent' employer.

Prior to trial, the court held that Vanderbilt's proposed jury
instructions relating to Borg Warner's duty of care was too
lengthy. Instead of asking the counsel to rewrite it, the judge
said, "I'll think of something for you."

However, the court never rewrote the jury instructions, and,
instead, decided to drop the duty of care instruction altogether.

When Vanderbilt pointed out that it was missing, the court said "I
deliberately have removed those from the charge."

"Because the trial court refused to provide any instruction to
guide the jury in its deliberations on the responsibility of Borg
Warner as a premise owner and employer, Vanderbilt argues that the
trial court committed reversible error. We agree," Ridgely
concluded.

He explained that if the trial court wanted the proposed jury
instruction shortened, it should have either done as it promised
and rewrote the section, or it could have simply asked
Vanderbilt's counsel to submit a "more tailored" instruction
themselves.

As a result of the omitted section, the jury instructions asked
the jury to determine if Borg Warner was "at fault," but failed to
give the jury any guidance on what acts or omissions would
establish fault on the part of an employer.

"This material omission regarding the substance of Ohio law left
the jury without a correct statement of the applicable law and
requires a new trial," Judge Ridgely wrote.

Vanderbilt also argued that the trial court erred when it failed
to grant a new trial after witnesses provided "unreliable" and
"inflammatory" evidence during testimony that was ultimately ruled
inadmissible.

Vanderbilt provided four separate statements involving three
witnesses that required a new trial.

The appeals court addressed two statements made by plaintiff
witness Dr. Barry Castleman, who introduced hearsay that
Vanderbilt employees were "liars" and that the defendant had spent
millions of dollars "buying senators."

"Dr. Castleman's statement about Vanderbilt engaging in bribery is
especially egregious and requires a new trial. Even the trial
court openly worried whether 'any amount of curative instructions'
would 'erase from the minds of the jury' the statements made by
Dr. Castleman," Ridgely wrote.

"That worry was fully justified because the inadmissible testimony
was so derogatory that a simple admonishment to ignore that aspect
of Dr. Castleman's testimony, while leaving the jury to accept the
rest of his views as an expert witness, was clearly insufficient,"
he wrote. "Further, there was no curative instruction regarding
the hearsay statements alleging that Vanderbilt spent sixteen
million dollars on studies to undermine government regulatory
action. Thus, the trial court's corrective action was insufficient
to mitigate the prejudice caused by the admission of the
evidence."

Because Castleman's statements were enough to warrant a new trial,
the appeals court concluded that it didn't need to examine
testimony beyond Castleman's to conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion when it denied Vanderbilt's motion for a
mistrial.

The two other witnesses who provided questionable statements were
Sean Fitzgerald, expert for Galliher, and Thomas Rogers, a
Vanderbilt employee.

Galliher also raised an issue, claiming the trial court erred when
it disallowed post-judgment interest for a certain period of
months.

Judge Ridgely stated the court would not address the claim because
a new trial has been ordered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Hillcrest Public School
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that Bayshore Broadcasting
published a report about new developments with the demolition of
the former Hillcrest Public School in Orillia, Canada. According
to the article, asbestos has been discovered in the structure and
building materials. Consequently, the structure is being
demolished to make way for the construction of a new playground
and park.

For many years, asbestos was added to a number of common building
materials to increase their strength and durability, and to
provide insulating and fireproofing properties. Many older
buildings across Canada still have materials that contain asbestos
in them. Some of the many materials that may contain asbestos in
older structures include:

* Attic and wall insulation containing vermiculite

* Vinyl floor tiles and the backing on vinyl sheet flooring

* Adhesives

* Roofing and siding shingles

* Textured paint and patching compounds used on walls and ceilings

* Walls and floors around wood-burning stoves protected with
asbestos paper, millboard or cement sheets

* Hot water and steam pipes coated with asbestos material or
covered with an asbestos blanket or tape

* Oil and coal furnace insulation and door gaskets

* Heat-resistant fabrics

When asbestos-containing materials age or are disturbed, they can
become friable and asbestos fibers can become airborne. During
remodeling and demolition activities, such as at the former
Hillcrest Public School, these materials can be easily disturbed
and become airborne. If not properly handled, these fibers can
pose a threat to workers and other building occupants and in this
situation could have created a hazard in the soil of the new
playground and park if the asbestos had not been identified and
properly managed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Starts Fibro Testing for Former GM Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that an out of state law firm has
initiated asbestos testing for thousands of former GM employees.
Begun some four months ago, the firm reportedly wants to test
workers who their current health problems are related to exposure.
The firm is paying for the testing, which consists of two x-rays.

In cases where people test positive, they become eligible to
receive money from as many as 47 asbestos trusts that have
established for this very reason. The amount of financial
compensation varies from person to person, depending on the
severity of symptoms that are found to be directly related to
asbestos.

In cases where peoples test results are negative they don't owe
any money for the testing.

According to the attorney heading up the effort, thousands of GM
employees were exposed to asbestos if they worked at GM plants
from the 1960's to 1982. (ABC12.com)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medical Center Cited for Improper Fibro Disposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) has cited The Veterans
AffairsMedical Center near Martinsburg for improperly disposing of
asbestos-containing material.

The debris was discovered July 21 by Greenfield Enterprises while
the general contractor was working on demolition of a concrete
slab in the boiler plant, according to information released by the
DEP and provided by Krista Bowen, an industrial hygienist with the
medical center.

The material was spotted in soil along the rear wall of the boiler
plant, according to information provided to the state. Work was
stopped on the day the debris was spotted and appropriate measures
were taken to cordon off and wet down the area, officials said.

The work was being done as part of upgrades to the boiler plant,
which is about as far away from the hospital building as you can
get on the medical campus, medical center spokesman Michael J.
McAleer said.

The contractor began demolition work on the concrete slab on July
11, according to the DEP.

A DEP notice of violation was issued July 24 by inspector Michael
Kanehl, according to a copy of the notice released by the agency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Asks 2nd Cir. for $3.5MM From Reinsurer
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reported that an
American International Group Inc. subsidiary asked the Second
Circuit to overturn a district court judge's ruling that it was
barred from obtaining reinsurance reimbursement related to $3.5
million in asbestos litigation settlements on the grounds that it
acted in bad faith.

Granite State Insurance Co. said the appeals court must decide
whether Clearwater Insurance Co. may escape liability because of
Granite State's alleged late notice, notwithstanding the fact that
Clearwater has shown no prejudice from the delay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit May Belong in Ky., Pa. Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reported that CSX Transportation
Inc. won a second shot at dismissing an asbestos personal injury
suit from a former worker after a Pennsylvania appeals court found
that Kentucky, where the alleged asbestos exposure occurred, may
have been the better state for a trial.

A three-judge panel sided with the railroad company on its
interlocutory appeal of a decision denying its bid to dismiss the
plaintiff's Federal Employers Liability Act suit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Authority Fails Fibro Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Campbell, writing for News Observer, reported that the North
Carolina Labor Department has fined the Raleigh Housing Authority
$2,500 after an inspection found the public housing agency didn't
tell its employees they'd be working in asbestos-filled buildings
and failed to provide state-mandated hazard training.

The department's Division of Occupational Safety and Health issued
two citations on Aug. 1. In addition to raising the asbestos
issues, inspectors reported that the employer didn't develop a
written program to communicate hazards, then put the plan in
effect.

Spokeswoman Dolores Quesenberry said the department couldn't
comment on specifics because the case is still open. The housing
authority requested an informal conference with safety inspectors,
she said.  That means Housing Authority officials will get a
chance to present evidence and negotiate a settlement, possibly
with a plan to fix the problems, and receive a reduced fine.

Housing Authority Director Steve Beam said his agency will follow
all recommendations from the Department of Labor.

"I would expect we'll go significantly beyond" the state's
requirements, Beam said. "I think we place safety as the No. 1
item for both our residents and our employees."

Beam said the Housing Authority received the citations Aug. 4, but
employees weren't notified about them because the department head
involved was on vacation.

Beam said that employees get regular safety training and that some
are certified in dealing with hazards like asbestos and lead-based
paint. "They were told to assume that all areas had asbestos," he
said.

But state law requires maintenance workers be told specifically
about the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing
material within their work environments, according to the
citation. And the state mandates at least two hours of training in
how to recognize damaged asbestos materials that could get into
the air; inspectors said the housing authority's instruction fell
short.

A number of the agency's older public housing complexes contain
asbestos, including Glenwood Towers, Heritage Park, Mayview and
Kentwood.

Roy Rutledge, a consultant at the nonprofit Safety and Health
Council of North Carolina, said the state's rules are important to
keep workers healthy. Inhaling asbestos -- which is no longer used
in new building materials -- can cause lung cancer and other
serious illnesses.

"The major problem with asbestos is if you disturb it," Rutledge
said, adding that rules exist to protect workers from unwittingly
working with hazardous chemicals.

The Housing Authority's second citation -- the missing hazard
communication program -- is common statewide, Rutledge said. The
Department of Labor labels it "nonserious."

"There are folks who are not aware (of the requirement), and there
are those who don't know the extent that they have to go to,"
Rutledge said.

Beam said the violations are a rare occurrence for his agency, and
that he'll soon start thorough training to make sure employees
know more about asbestos.

"This is the first safety issue we've had brought to our attention
in 20 years," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Assessed $19,000 for Fibro Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bonacci, writing for MassLive.com, reported that a licensed
asbestos removal company in Leominster, Massachusetts, will pay
$5,000 in fines after reportedly failing to follow asbestos-
removal regulations.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following prescribed work
practices is imperative to protect workers as well as the general
public," said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP's Central
Regional Office in Worcester. "Failure to do so will result in
penalties, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and
monitoring costs."

The Mass Department of Environmental Protection assessed
$19,312.50 in penalties following an inspection of home that A & E
Environmental, Inc., of Leominster, was hired to clear of
asbestos. The company will pay $5,000 in fines, with the remaining
penalty suspended as long as the company goes a year without
another violation, reported the MassDEP.

MassDEP inspectors reportedly found asbestos-containing insulation
on the basement floor and on heating pipes after the company had
completed its work at the home. The asbestos-containing materials
must be sealed properly and disposed of in approved landfills.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blamed for Death of Much Hadham Man
----------------------------------------------------------
Sinead Holland, writing for Herts and Essex Observer, reported
that a retired print manager died at his home in Much Hadham,
England, from the effects of exposure to asbestos about half a
century ago, an inquest was on August 14.

John Martin, 71, of School House Gardens, Tower Hill, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma only four months before his death.

Herts coroner Edward Thomas said that Mr Martin cut asbestos
boards during his apprenticeship when he was working on installing
partitioning walls in the 1960s. At the time there were no
warnings of any particular dangers about asbestos.

Mr Martin went on to help erect offices within premises, again
using asbestos boards, the coroner added.

The family man, who lived with his wife Janet, a retired clinical
receptionist, died at home on July 13.

The coroner, sitting at Hatfield Coroner's Court, recorded a
verdict that Mr Martin died from an industrial disease. His
mesothelioma was due to exposure to asbestos during his
employment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Ruling Could Have Pushed Fibro Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a law professor and bankruptcy attorney agree that a loss for
asbestos plaintiffs attorney earlier this year in the Garlock
Sealing Technologies proceeding could have been a major factor in
Bondex's recently announced bankruptcy settlement.

RPM International's bankruptcy settlement of its subsidiary
Bondex's asbestos liability is roughly $660 million more than it
believed was appropriate and came during what could have been a
successful appeal, but it is also roughly $800 million less than a
judge ordered the company to pay in 2013.

On July 28, RPM International Inc. announced an agreement with the
bankruptcy representatives of current and future claimants in
order to resolve Bondex-related asbestos liability. According to
the agreement, RPM would pay $797.5 million over four years and
resolve all present and future asbestos personal injury claims
related to Bondex International, Inc. The case is currently being
litigated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Bondex manufactured joint compound, which formerly contained
chrysotile asbestos, for do-it-yourself home projects.

Bondex's agreement stemmed from a May 2013 ruling by former U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald, in which she estimated
Bondex's liability at $1.166 billion. However, Bondex argued
during the estimation proceedings that its actual liability
amounted to $135 million.

RPM appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, arguing Fitzgerald reached an escalated number by
placing too much weight on past settlement agreements. Many of
those settlements were reached to push aside nuisance lawsuits,
Bondex said.

The appeal could have ended well for the debtors, especially on
the heels of this year's landmark Garlock Sealing Technologies
Ruling, in which Judge George Hodges' ruled that Garlock's
liability to current and future asbestos claimants amounted to
$125 million -- which is more than $1 billion less than what
plaintiffs attorneys estimated.

Professor Lester Brickman, with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of
Law of the Yeshiva University, said the Garlock decision could
have been the driving force behind the agreement.

In fact, Brickman said Bondex's appeal would have stood "little
chance of succeeding" if not for the Garlock case. He opined that
it's possible that the counsel for the Bondex ACC were concerned
about the potential effects the Garlock bankruptcy decision could
have on the Bondex appeal.

"Indeed, had it not been for Judge Hodges' decision in the Garlock
bankruptcy, it is my view that the Bondex (Asbestos Claimants
Committee) counsel would have offered little or nothing to avert
the appeal," he said.

Bankruptcy attorney David Christian, founder of the David
Christian Attorneys firm, agreed, saying the Garlock ruling could
have provided Bondex with an opportunity for settlement.

"It may be the fact that Bondex gained an arrow in its quiver," he
said.

However, Christian said there was still a risk that RPM could have
lost on appeal and could have been ordered to pay what Fitzgerald
estimated its liability at.

He added that Bondex had to consider whether the appeal was worth
threatening the "livelihood of the parent."

Christian said that while the agreement may seem unfair to the
debtors, Bondex had its own agenda to carry out.

"The public wants to see justice done," he said. "We want to see
the right result. But that's not necessarily the goal of the
litigants."

He explained that the debtors' primary concern was to protect the
parent company, RPM, so the settlement agreement was more of a
business agreement.

"Bondex has accomplished what it set out to do," Christian said.
"So, that's a win. They accomplished their objective."

The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants also supports the
agreement. Attorney Natalie D. Ramsey of the Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads law firm is part of the committee's
counsel and said she is satisfied by the positive step towards
compensation.

"The committee is pleased with the settlement, which creates a
substantial fund for the asbestos victims," Ramsey stated.

"Nothing can adequately compensate those who have developed a
fatal or debilitating injury as a result of exposure to asbestos;
however, the settlement will enable those individuals or their
families who were exposed to the debtors' asbestos products to
receive remuneration without additional delay."

Fitzgerald was unconvinced by Bondex's arguments during the
estimation trial.

In her opinion, she explained that the debtors would settle claims
even when a plaintiff's argument was weak, the risk of trial was
too high or if the plaintiff's product identification was
sufficient enough to survive summary judgment. Therefore, she held
that the debtors' market share was not accurate enough to govern
liability.

"[I]f a mesothelioma claim was settled by debtors for a nominal
amount, there must have been some evidence of exposure against
other defendants in the tort system but, because debtors made a
payment nonetheless, debtors must have determined that the
claimant either was exposed to a Bondex product or that Bondex was
not going to contest exposure," Fitzgerald wrote.

"That is, the settlement indicates that Bondex was either agreeing
that there was some liability, which would be its defense in the
tort system. Therefore, the settlements are relevant to estimation
because they place a value on the claims."

Prior to the RPM/Bondex estimation proceeding, the debtors filed
discovery requests for access to information from the plaintiffs'
firms that had filed asbestos claims against them.

The debtors wanted the information so its expert, the Bates White
economic consulting firm, could determine their appropriate
liability. The information would help the debtors "compare the
magnitude of recovery from asbestos trusts with the claimants'
'expected aggregate tort system recoveries.'"

The debtors alleged that the information would show they settled
pre-petition claims on an inflated basis, even though they
conceded they investigated the claims before they settled.

The plaintiffs objected, claiming discovery would be burdensome
and beyond what the debtors needed in order to establish a trust.

They also argued that the information was confidential and had no
relevance to the debtors' liability.

Fitzgerald agreed and denied the debtors request for discovery.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family to Demolish Home Ahead of Gov't Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Morozow, writing for ABC News, reported that a family in
Canberra, Australia, has decided to demolish their home ahead of a
ruling on the fate of asbestos-affected houses across the city.

The Canberra homes remain in limbo after revelations that despite
a clean-up years ago, traces of Mr Fluffy asbestos insulation
could still be found.

Homeowners in at least 31 properties have been advised to move out
after the fibres were found in living areas.

A new reference group was formed to help respond to the crisis.
But it is cold comfort for the Harradine family, who have
abandoned their Yarralumla home.

In June testing confirmed the presence of loose-fill asbestos,
remnants from Mr Fluffy insulation, inside their house.

Returning to salvage belongings

They returned with an assessor to learn the extent of the
contamination and see what possessions they could salvage from
their home.

The assessor said the asbestos was likely contained to the kitchen
and laundry areas of the home.

Sampling showed there were no positive tests for the rest of the
house.

Between us we decided look, the safest course, for us and to make
sure we don't pass this on in future... the best and safest thing
to do is bring it down.

"There is a sense of relief that it's not in the children's
bedrooms so that was a relief," Sue Harradine told 7.30ACT.

But the Harradines' sense of relief - knowing the contamination
could have been much worse - was mixed with anguish at having
potentially exposed their family.

"It's a place that we thought was safe and secure, and is our
home, is no longer that," Mark Harradine said.

The family have been living in a rental property full of donated
furniture for the past seven weeks, but it's been more than a year
since the family learned about the Mr Fluffy legacy inside their
house.

Asbestos management plan already in place

When the Harradines bought the property in 2010, being naturally
cautious, they organised a comprehensive asbestos management plan.

"We were told we were being ultra careful and in fact the asbestos
assessor who first did it said why are you getting this done?" Mr
Harradine said.

Following renovations last year they had the assessor revisit to
update the plan, and that is when the loose-fill asbestos was
first detected in the sub floor.  The family were devastated, as
during the course of the building works they had some of the
floorboards lifted up.

"As a parent that was a really soul-destroying moment," Mr
Harradine said.

The Harradines informed Worksafe of the contamination and wrote to
the then WorkSafety Minister Simon Corbell, and Chief Minister
Katy Gallagher.

"We actually felt that if it had happened to us it was very likely
to be in other places and we just wanted the information out there
to just make sure that no one else had to go through what we went
through," Mr Harradine said.

But the response from the Chief Minister last July provided little
comfort.

"What I know is this, we gave them a report in may 2013, and we
were required by law to provide it to Worksafe because it was a
notifiable incident. A notifiable incident surely means someone on
the other end is going to take notice of it," Mr Harradine said.

It wasn't until February this year that the ACT Government wrote
to all Mr Fluffy households about the potential threat of
contamination.

But back at their home in Yarralumla life went on, until a third
asbestos assessment arranged by the government, changed
everything.

A phone call in June broke the news that amosite asbestos had now
been found in the house's living areas.

The family fled the house that day, leaving all of their
possessions behind.

"We just both went well, if this is in the living space...  in the
kitchen, where the kids walk through, where we walk through, we
just have to get out," Mr Harradine said.

While a government decision of the fate of the Mr Fluffy houses is
imminent, the Harradines have decided they can't wait, and will
demolish as soon as possible.

"Between us we decided look, the safest course, for us and to make
sure we don't pass this on in future... the best and safest thing
to do is bring it down," he said.

Despite the heartache this house has caused, the family will
rebuild on the site.

"We think ok, alright, let's try and make this a hiccup," Mr
Harradine said.

"It sure doesn't feel like one, it feels like a flaming eight on
the Richter scale earthquake. But let's try and get past this and
settle into a happy pattern of life."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Insulation Checks by NSW Gov't Welcomed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dyett and Clarissa Thorpe, writing for ABC News, reported
that an independent investigation into how many New South Wales
properties contain potentially deadly loose-fill asbestos
insulation has received bi-partisan political support.

The asbestos fibres were pumped into roof spaces of houses in the
ACT and surrounding NSW areas in the 1960s and 1970s by the Mr
Fluffy insulation company.

Loose-fill asbestos has been identified in 13 homes in the Yass
Valley, Palerang and Queanbeyan Council areas, as well as more
than 1,000 homes in Canberra suburbs.

The homes in the ACT were subject to a Commonwealth-funded removal
program in the 1980s and 1990s, however properties across the
border in NSW were left untouched.

A total of 31 families were forced to move out of ACT properties
after asbestos fibres were detected in living areas despite the
clean-up program.

There are concerns the loose-fill asbestos poses a health risk, as
inhaling the tiny fibres could lead to the lung cancer,
mesothelioma.

The NSW Government has asked WorkCover to employ an independent
specialist to work with the authorities to determine the total
number of affected properties.

A free asbestos testing service has been announced for residents
in 14 local government areas across the state.

NSW authorities are also investigating reports another company
might have been using similar insulation methods in Sydney homes.

NSW Labor MP Steve Whan said the investigation was a step in the
right direction for the decades-old health issue.

"Our problem for quite a long time has been that we're relying on
people actually knowing or suspecting that they have the asbestos
insulation in their roofs," he said.

"And in the past in Queanbeyan, that has led to only a very few
people actually self-identifying.

"I certainly would urge people who are in a house which might have
asbestos installation and who aren't sure, to take advantage of
what the Government's offering."

Free asbestos assessments on offer: Monaro MP

Nationals Member for Monaro John Barilaro said free independent
technical assessments would be offered for the next 12 months.

"This was too important a health issue to be left unchecked a
moment longer," Mr Barilaro said.

"I'm pleased the NSW Government has taken this necessary action
now and feel confident a solution may soon be at hand for those
affected by the Mr Fluffy legacy."

Peter Dunphy, who is the chief executive of WorkCover NSW said the
number of affected houses in the state is expected to be small,
but widespread.

"We know even in the ACT, where Mr Fluffy predominantly operated,
it was less than 1.5 per cent of all the houses of that era, so it
is a very small number and we don't believe that it will be a huge
number in NSW," he said.

"But we certainly want to do everything we can to identify every
house."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halt to Rebuilt Ordered With Fibro Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Galinovic, writing for St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader,
reported that owners of a house in Hutchinson Street, Bardwell
Park, Australia, recently given a stop-work order by Rockdale
Council, were part of a wider community problem of unauthorised
works, a council spokesman said.

The council has ordered the owners to stop demolishing parts of
their house following community concerns that the work was illegal
and the building could contain asbestos.

The council also served the owners with a clean-up notice under
the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997 which in this
case related to the potential of asbestos and how to remove it.

"Failure to comply will lead to further legal action," the
spokesman said. "The council continues to monitor this site."

The property owners declined to comment. The spokesman said there
were "dozens and dozens" of people out there who demolished or
changed their houses without an approval and as it was impossible
for council to keep tabs on every house, it was up to the people
affected by this to report it.

"Neighbourhood vigilance can save them a lot of hassle and
trouble," he said.

"Illegal demolitions are a fact of life for all councils but we do
have the necessary legal instruments to deal with these issues."

Not good enough, says residents' spokeswoman Joanne Jones, who has
a science background.

She said much more could be done to protect residents from
asbestos fibres, one of the biggest health risks in the 21st
century.

Ms Jones said her neighbours had watched the partial demolition of
this 70-year-old house but had no idea if their fears were
justified or if the work had been approved until they took it up
with the council. "They can't just tear a house down," Ms Jones
said. "This is a 70-year-old house and everyone knows old homes
are a risk."

Ms Jones would like to see a strong code of practice backed by
heavy fines, along with official notices prominently displayed at
each demolition/renovation/building site.

"Otherwise how does a neighbour know the demolition work is
legal," she said.

"Rules and regulations have a purpose and the council needs to
show that it's a tiger and not a pussy cat."

COUNCIL RESPONSE

Rockdale Council stressed that residents should check with council
if a consent is required for demolition or renovation works. And a
suitably licensed asbestos removalist should be engaged to carry
out the removal. An exception is where less than 10 square metres
of bonded asbestos is being removed. The handling and storage of
asbestos waste at worksites is regulated solely by WorkCover NSW,
while the EPA and councils regulate non-worksites.

* Waste must be stored on the premises in an environmentally safe
manner.

* Bonded asbestos material must be securely packaged at all times.

* Friable asbestos material must be kept in a sealed container.

* All asbestos waste must be transported in a covered, leak-proof
vehicle.

* It is illegal to dispose of asbestos waste in domestic garbage
bins.

* It is also illegal to re-use, recycle or illegally dump asbestos
products.

Non compliance with a clean-up notice is an offence and can
attract a maximum fine of $1,000,000 for a corporation and
$250,000 for an individual.

Rockdale Council is taking part in a householders' asbestos
removals scheme being trialled by the NSW Environment Protection
Authority (EPA). The trial will waive the waste levy on asbestos
and reduce tip fees for 12 months from July 31 or until 5000
tonnes of asbestos are collected.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Discovery Leads to Alert
-----------------------------------------------------
Doug Burkhardt, writing for Hillsboro Tribune, reported that there
might be a slight delay in finding that open parking space near
the Shute Park Aquatic & Recreation Center, in Hillsboro, Oregon.

The city of Hillsboro announced that two of the five houses
recently purchased to make way for a new parking area near the
corner of Southeast Ninth Avenue and Southeast Maple Street still
had asbestos in them.

The houses were built in the 1940s and 1950s, so the presence of
asbestos in itself did not come as any surprise. But contractors
hired by the city to determine if there was asbestos or other
environmental problems failed to discover all of the asbestos,
which is a known cancer-causing agent. After additional
inspection, asbestos was found in the third layer of the kitchen
floor covering, the second layer of the bathroom flooring, at the
bottom of a laundry room's walls and in the undercoating of a
sink.

The discovery was further complicated by the fact that after
contractors reported there was no more asbestos, two of the houses
on Southeast Ninth Avenue were used by the Hillsboro Fire
Department for "Burn to Learn" exercises, which initially raised
the possibility some asbestos had gone airborne.

Although there is little likelihood of any health risk to
neighbors, when officials with the city of Hillsboro found out
asbestos was still present, a team from the city went around the
neighborhood to alert residents as well as employees of the nearby
Shute Park Branch Library, the Senior Center and the SHARC
facility.

"Ensuring our community's safety and well-being is our highest
priority," said Patrick Preston, spokesman for the city of
Hillsboro. "We're erring on the side of caution, so we went door
to door to make sure everybody was aware. We do not believe the
activity at the site constituted a risk to public health."

Preston said the city is being extra cautious to protect the
public, and he compared the situation to the recent closure of
city parks after callers said they had seen a cougar in the area.

"This is a unique situation we have not experienced before," said
Preston. "We had environmental testing prior to the fire
department's exercises. The city had contracted with an outside
firm to test and abate the properties, but after the fire
department's training was completed additional testing identified
the continued presence of asbestos."

Preston said there was no health risk to the firefighters
involved.

"On all training exercises and drills, our firefighters follow
strict safety procedures and wear the appropriate protective
equipment," Preston pointed out.

The city hired PBS Engineering of Portland to remove the remaining
asbestos from the houses. Dave Stover, PBS' director of training
and a senior project manager, said that he did not anticipate any
problems in getting the remaining asbestos out of the houses.

"Removing asbestos is pretty routine," he said. "What's not
routine is that it wasn't discovered."

PBS' cleanup operation was completed.

The city hired several companies for environmental site
assessments (Assessment Associates Inc. of Portland and Hahn &
Associates, also of Portland), asbestos tests (AMI Environmental
Testing Inc. of McMinnville) and asbestos abatement (Professional
Minority Group of Eagle Creek), and Preston said he was not sure
how the asbestos was missed by the contractors.

"We are looking at what happened," he said. "But the main point is
the safety and well-being of the community."

Stover said it is not rare for something to be missed in the
initial inspections.

Items overlooked

"Like with any form of inspection, items can get missed," Stover
said. "That's probably what happened here with those layered
materials. Someone came in and put a new floor over a floor, or
two floors over the floor. The situation is, the city contracted
with people who did some inventory to identify what was there and
remediate it, but it turned out they overlooked some things."

Imad Abouzaki, a senior project manager with PBS, sent a letter to
the city of Hillsboro reporting that the asbestos-containing
materials were not damaged during the fire training exercises.

"All of the identified asbestos-containing material remained in
good condition, i.e., no deterioration or impacts that could
render them non-intact," Abouzaki wrote. "The recent fire event
did not disturb these materials or cause them to become airborne
. . . there would not have been a fiber release episode during
this event."

Stover said he appreciates the way the city has handled the
situation.

"The city is being very open and up front about it," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Re-opening of Church Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
Jane Meredith, writing for Newbury Today, reported that the
re-opening of Woolton Hill church hall, in Englan, has been
delayed following the discovery of asbestos.

The GBP400,000 Living Stones project aims to extend and refurbish
St Thomas' church hall and update the church, but the asbestos
problem had been discovered at the hall "at the 11th hour"
according to fundraising co-ordinator, Mike Palmer.

"Completion of the GBP400,000 building project has been delayed by
two weeks due to the recent discovery of asbestos lagging around
some old underground heating pipes," said Mr Palmer.

"The asbestos is in the process of being removed at an additional
cost of GBP12,000."

An anonymous loan had been arranged to cover the cost, to be paid
back over the next two to three years.

Mr Palmer added: "We have already received a donation of GBP1,000
from the Gerald Palmer Eling Trust -- a wonderful reaction to our
request for help."

Phase one of the project included removing the hall stage,
creating a new kitchen serving hatch and building a new storeroom.

Phase two included replacing the old toilets, installing a new
boiler room, building two new storerooms and two meeting rooms,
cladding the inner walls and building new flat and sloping roofs.

The installation of a new floor, lighting and heating, wall
insulation, kitchen units and upgrading a meeting room was
included in phase three.

Mr Palmer said: "The existing hall is being completely refurbished
with underfloor heating throughout and an excellent new kitchen to
a 'commercial' standard.

"The hall is being re-wired and redecorated, and we even have
broadband and wi-fi facilities installed."

Hall users include Brownies, local clubs and Woolton Hill Pre-
school, and it should re-open on September 8, in line with the
autumn term.

The monthly village market will return to the hall on September
27, with an alternative site being sought for August 30.

A grand opening of the refurbished hall is planned  on October 4,
with invited guests including representatives from four major
sponsors of the project -- Greenham Common Trust, The Veolia
Environmental Trust, Hampshire County Council and Basingstoke &
Deane Borough Council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Looks to Eventually Leaving Libby, Montana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that more than
a decade after one of the largest Superfund projects in American
history got underway in Lincoln County, Montana, local, state and
federal officials are now looking toward the future and thinking
about how the Libby asbestos cleanup will end. Officials with the
Environmental Protection Agency will meet with local officials
later this year to discuss what type of institutional controls to
put in place once the federal agency wraps up its cleanup and
hands it over to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

But local officials, including the Lincoln County Commission, are
concerned that future cleanup costs could be passed on to
homeowners and have a detrimental impact on property values in the
area.

According to EPA Libby project manager Rebecca Thomas, it is still
too early to tell what type of institutional controls could be
implemented in Libby, but suggested that some asbestos that is
sealed off inside a home or buried deep underground may not be
removed. Institution controls are rules or regulations that are
implemented in a community after a Superfund cleanup to reduce
human exposure to a contamination.

"The EPA can't remove all of the asbestos," Thomas said. "I'm not
even confident we can find and remove all of it. Because of that
there will be encounters with asbestos after the EPA is gone and
the question is how will people deal with those encounters."

For years, asbestos-laden vermiculate was mined near Libby by the
Maryland-based W.R. Grace & Company. The mine closed in 1990, but
the effects of the poisonous asbestos have lasted for years.
According to the Center for Asbestos Related Disease, also known
as the CARD Clinic, some 2,000 current or former residents of
Lincoln County have been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases
and at least 400 have died. Libby was declared an EPA Superfund
site in 2002 and in June 2009, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
named the town the agency's first and only Public Health Emergency
resulting from an environmental disaster.

Because of how expansive the contamination was, the EPA began to
clean up sites in Lincoln County before a risk assessment was
completed. However, because the EPA had never dealt with Libby
asbestos, the agency also had to find its toxicity value. Toxicity
is a measure of how much of a substance is needed to cause harm to
an organism. Thomas said the final toxicity value should be
determined later this year and after that it would take about six
months to issue the risk assessment. She said the assessment would
determine what type of additional cleanup would be needed and what
institutional controls would be implemented.

At a recent meeting between the EPA and DEQ, and attended by Nick
Raines, manager of the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program,
officials discussed the fact that some asbestos would be left
behind. That concerned Raines, who met with Lincoln County
officials to talk about the future of the cleanup. Raines said for
years, many people in the area thought there would be financial
resources from the federal government to deal with the cleanup
once the EPA left, but now it's unclear if federal money will be
available.

Commissioner Tony Berget was in attendance and he said he was
concerned about how future homeowners would deal with asbestos in
their walls if the EPA was not there to help pay for the cleanup.
Berget said homeowners would not want to pay for an expensive
asbestos mitigation in their home if they just wanted to install a
new light switch.

"They would probably just double-bag it and bring it to the
country dump," Berget said. "We can't pass these costs on to the
people."

Raines said he hopes all agencies at all levels of government will
be able to work together in the coming months. Officials at the
EPA agreed.

"We want to work through these complicated issues and the EPA will
not make any decisions without community input," Thomas said.
"Without community support, no institutional controls will work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Fires Supervisor of Prison Fibro Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the Washington Department of
Corrections has fired the supervisor in charge of an inmate work
crew that used unsafe practices in cleaning up asbestos.

The agency last year closed down the 23-year-old program that sent
prisoners to clean up cancer-causing asbestos. In April, it agreed
to pay state labor regulators more than $70,000 in fines to settle
an investigation into asbestos cleanup practices.

The News Tribune, citing a letter obtained through a public
records request, says Gary Baldwin, who was head of the asbestos
removal program, was dismissed in April.

Baldwin is appealing the decision. Attempts to reach him were
unsuccessful.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Tenants Given Access to Mr. Fluffy Details
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
Australian Capital Territory Government has shifted ground on
allowing former tenants and owners access to details about Mr
Fluffy homes, saying it will accept a statutory declaration as
proof someone lived in a house.

A spokesperson for the Asbestos Taskforce said authorities had
widened the acceptable proofs to include a statutory declaration,
based on feedback. Former tenants or owners can also produce a
rates notice, an electricity, gas or water bill, a rental
statement, or seek permission from the home owner.

You then fill out a form available online and lodge it in person
or by email with the Environment and Planning Directorate.

The government has not released the list of 1000-plus Canberra
homes that contained the dangerous loose-fill asbestos insulation,
despite freedom of information requests, because the release would
breach the privacy of home owners. Owners are worried about their
homes being targeted, including those that now stand empty with
people forced to leave, and about their privacy, and their house
values.

If a decision is made to demolish the houses, with taskforce head
Andrew Kefford's advice on this due with the government at latest,
authorities have suggested the list might be released since much
of the justification for withholding it will become moot.

In the meantime, the system begins for former tenants to track
down the information.

Mr Kefford said the taskforce had balanced privacy with the
importance of providing the information to people.

The requests are processed free of charge.

He said before making an application, tenants should consider the
age of the home they had lived in; Mr Fluffy stopped installing
the asbestos in 1978 or 1979. Tenants should also consider simply
asking their former landlord or real estate agent.

Several former owners and tenants were registered with the
taskforce, he said.

Also, NSW joins the hunt for Mr Fluffy houses after the NSW
government announced that residents in 14 local government areas
could request a free test to check whether their roof spaces
contained the insulation.

The 14 areas do not include Wollongong or Newcastle, where
residents have told The Canberra Times they believe the material
was pumped into ceilings in the 1970s, but take in parts of the
south coast, Snowy Mountains, areas around Albury near the
Victorian border, Young, and areas near Canberra.

NSW state MP Steve Whan told the NSW Parliament that he had been
contacted previously by several residents in Jindabyne and
Queanbeyan.

Given the ACT response, it was no longer tenable for the NSW
government to suggest it was safe to live in homes where the
asbestos still remained in ceilings, he said.

NSW's advice that it was safe so long as the ceiling was sealed
off relied on a 1993 study of seven homes in Queanbeyan, Mr Whan
said. But homes were getting older, some had been renovated and
others had changed hands, with new owners not knowing the asbestos
history of their homes.

"It's been over 20 years now since that advice which the NSW
Department of Health is still relying on was actually formulated,"
he told the NSW Parliament. "It is simply not adequate any more to
rely on a 21-year-old study to say that these homes are safe."

Mr Whan said the announcement was a step in the right direction,
but was flawed because it relied on NSW residents coming forward
for the voluntary assessments.

"More importantly, it leaves NSW still providing families with
advice that is way out of step with the messages coming from
Canberra and the majority of independent experts," he said, urging
the government to review its advice that the asbestos was safe to
live with.

"Until recently the ACT also thought Mr Fluffy houses were safe.
Now we are seeing them demolished. Clearly the situation has
changed in recent months as new information emerges, and
government must respond accordingly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Win Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an Oklahoma federal judge has granted summary judgment for
three defendants in a take-home asbestos exposure case, concluding
two box manufacturing companies and a boiler manufacturer did not
owe a duty of care to a former plant supervisor's wife.

In a series of three orders, Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti delivered
the opinions on July 30 and Aug. 1 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in favor of defendants
International Paper Company, Cleaver-Brooks, MeadWestvaco
Corporation and MW Custom Papers, LLC -- Mead Corporation was its
predecessor.

Plaintiffs Norma and Eugene Bootenhoff claimed Eugene brought
asbestos fibers home on his clothing, exposing his wife when she
laundered his work clothes. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
August 2009 and later died from the disease.

The claimants sought to impose liability on IPC through its
predecessor companies, Weyerhaueser and Hoernher Waldorf. They
alleged Eugene's asbestos exposure occurred while he worked with
these companies.

He worked at Weyerhaueser in Minnesota from 1955 through 1966,
working as a printing press operator until 1958 and in quality
control through 1959.

While working in quality control, Eugene removed and installed
asbestos containing pipe insulation on a corrugating machine at
the warehouse on two occasions. The opinion notes that each
project lasted an hour or two.

He then worked as a supervisor from 1960 until 1966.

Eugene took a break from IPC and worked for defendant Mead
Container in Arkansas, owned by the Mead Corporation, from 1966
until 1972.

While there, he did not perform any hands-on work with any of the
machinery. However, he claimed he was sometimes present when the
boiler was opened up for work and when pumps were being serviced
by other employees. He alleged these pieces of machinery contained
asbestos, exposing him to the fibers.

The Bootenhoffs then moved to Colorado, where Eugene worked as a
supervisor at Hoernher/Waldorf from 1972 until 1976.  He switched
to plant manager of the Hoernher Waldorf/Champion International
box plant in Oklahoma City from 1976 until 1998.

In addition to his former employers, Bootenhoff named Cleaver
Brooks as a defendant for manufacturing boilers that were
allegedly present at his work site, which allegedly contained
asbestos.

The defendants argued that if any asbestos exposure was present at
the facilities, it would be in pipe insulation on machines used to
manufacture boxes.

IPC claimed Oklahoma is the appropriate choice of law to govern
the case, but the plaintiffs claimed either Minnesota or Colorado
law is appropriate.

The court found that Oklahoma is proper.

The case meets Oklahoma's place of injury standard, which is where
a latent asbestos related disease is first detected, and not where
the exposure occurred, DeGiusti held.

"Based on Oklahoma law addressing the related concept of accrual
of a cause of action, and persuasive authority from other
jurisdictions addressing choice of law," DeGiusti wrote, "the
court finds the place of injury is the place of diagnosis."

The case also meets the place of contact standard, because the
factor does not favor one state over another when the alleged
conduct is spread over more than one state.

DeGiusti held that because the plaintiffs failed to identify any
specific facts that might demonstrate more significant conduct in
one state over another, Oklahoma is proper.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs lived in Oklahoma since 1976 and
resided there at the time of diagnosis. Also, IPC had a
predecessor company there.

DeGiusti also wrote that Norma had no relationship with
Weyerhaueser or Hoernher Waldorf, and IPC's only relationship with
the plaintiff is through its predecessor company in Oklahoma.

"This conclusion is further supported by Restatement of Conflict
of Law 146, which provides that in personal injury actions, the
law of the place of injury determines the rights and liabilities
of the parties unless some other state has a more significant
relationship to the occurrence and the parties," DeGiusti wrote.

Because Oklahoma law was found to be proper, the court must apply
the state's previous determinations on the issue of legal duty in
regards to take-home asbestos exposure.

"IPC contends therefore, that the policy considerations of
'certainty, predictability and uniformity of result . . . and ease
in determining the applicable law' bolster application of Oklahoma
law," DeGiusti wrote.

He explained that the plaintiffs attempted to "cast a broad net"
when determining if it was foreseeable that a worker's asbestos
exposure was harmful to household members.

However, the court ruled that the issue is "more narrowly drawn
and requires a determination of the duty of care in a take-home
asbestos case where foreseeability is premised upon the worker's
'intermittent, non-occupational exposure to asbestos.'"

DeGiusti concluded that the plaintiffs' reliance upon Dr. Barry
Castleman's affidavit and additional reports is inadequate as a
matter of law to establish that IPC should have known of the
dangers of take-home asbestos exposure.

"The fact of these first reports -- in the medical field -- which
began to link the possibility of asbestos-related diseases to
household members of workers does not demonstrate the risk of that
disease should have been known in the industry by manufacturing
companies like IPC," he wrote.

DeGiusti also held that the plaintiffs' reliance on 1972 OSHA
regulations is insufficient, explaining that the OSHA standards
were designed to protect workers from excessive occupational
exposure in the workplace and did not extend to household members.

"In cases where a duty has been found to exist due to
foreseeability of the risk of harm from take-home exposure, the
employee's exposure has been direct, the employer has manufactured
asbestos or the employee has worked with asbestos products daily,
and some evidence of the employer's actual knowledge of the risk
of harm has been shown," he wrote.

In addition to the issue of foreseeability, the plaintiffs
attempted to address other policy considerations, including the
degree of certainty of harm, moral blame and extend of the burden
to the defendant, among other things.

"Here, because the risk of harm to Norma Bootenhoff was not
foreseeable, the harm to her as a result of IPC's conduct was not
certain," DeGiusti held. "The record is void of evidence of moral
blame associated with IPC's conduct."

As for the remaining defendants, DeGiusti held that the evidence
is virtually identical to that which the plaintiff relied upon for
IPC.

"For substantially the same reasons set forth in the IPC order,
this evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the
risk of harm was foreseeable."

As a result, he concluded that summary judgment was appropriate
for all defendants, because IPC owed no duty of care to the
decedent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Involved in Teighnmouth Bldg. Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter Express and Echo reported that fire crews were called to
Teignmouth after reports of a fire in a workshop.

Two fire engines from Teignmouth were called to reports of a small
unit at Helmores Yard, Exeter Street, being involved in the fire.

At 16:53 crews confirmed a single storey timber work shop to be on
fire.

Crews used breathing apparatus wearers, hose reel jets and a 10.5m
ladder to extinguish the fire.

Half of the contents and 10% of an asbestos slate roof were
affected by the fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Concerns at Ausgrid Depot
------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that there is concern energy workers may have
been exposed to asbestos at an Ausgrid depot near Toukley on the
Central Coast.

The Electrical Trades Union says it is believed asbestos fibres
were disturbed at the Noraville site while equipment was being
transferred to a new facility at Ourimbah.

Union spokesman Mark Buttigieg says contamination tests confirm
the presence of the potentially-deadly substance and all members
are being warned not to enter either depot until further tests are
carried out.

"What we believe has happened is that a number of boxes have been
disturbed during the move between depots, resulting in airborne
asbestos fibres being detected at the Noraville depot," he said.

"The union immediately advised all members not to enter the
Noraville depot until further testing can take place and required
remedial work is carried out.

"We are also advising members not to go anywhere near the new
stores depot at Ourimbah, as this is where the material that is
suspected of being contaminated has been transported to.

"What is most disturbing is that the workers did not find out
about the contamination and potential exposure from management,
but from a contractor.

"It was not until management were confronted that they admitted a
positive result to airborne asbestos had been received."

But Ausgrid says claims it failed to immediately inform staff
about an asbestos exposure risk assessment are completely untrue.

A safety alert was issued to staff after preliminary test results
from the Noraville warehouse were received.

Ausgrid says the building is constructed of asbestos cement sheet
walls and corrugated asbestos roofing.

An audit of the site in 2012 found the materials were in good
condition, while air monitoring results found no detectable levels
of airborne asbestos.

Ausgrid says when concerns were raised about the potential for
asbestos exposure from dust on storage boxes being moved from
Noraville to Ourimbah, it immediately engaged an independent
expert to carry out tests.

It says air monitoring performed again found no detectable levels
of airborne asbestos.

Six dust samples were also collected at the warehouse, and
preliminary test results indicate a single asbestos fibre bundle
was on one of these samples.

Ausgrid says as a result, we are undertaking further testing at
both the Noraville and Ourimbah depots to rule out any risk to our
staff. They've been advised to take precautionary measures until
these test results are known.

The company says the safety of workers and the community is
Ausgrid's number one priority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Naval Service Begins Survey for Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that the
Naval Service has begun a fleet-wide survey for asbestos after the
potentially lethal substance was discovered in four of its ships.

The Department of Defence also confirmed it is still carrying out
work on two ships which have spent months in dry dock since
asbestos was found.

Work to clean out asbestos from the LE Ciara and LE Orla began on
May 28. A Department of Defence spokeswoman said that the
operation, which is being conducted along Health and Safety
Authority guidelines, is ongoing.

She said: "There is as of yet no confirmed date for completion of
works. The Naval Service and the specialist contractor are working
closely together to complete works safely and quickly."

The department has not given any cost for the work, but sources in
PDForra, which represents enlisted men in the Naval Service, said
it was "likely to be very expensive".

The LE Aoife was found to have asbestos in a gasket in an engine.
The substance was also detected in LE Eithne's forward pump room.
However, they have not been dry-docked like the other two vessels
which appear to have far more significant asbestos issues.

The department said the outcome of the fleet-wide screening would
determine what course of action would be needed to address any
issues which might arise.

In the 1980s, asbestos was widely used in the ship- building
industry, especially in engine rooms to insulate pipes and
boilers. At the time, it was considered the best and most cost-
effective insulating material and was also fire-resistant.

In 2000, the Naval Service had commissioned consultants to examine
its ships for the substance and it had reported a clean bill of
health. The Service was shocked to discover that a substance which
had been ground up on board one of the vessels during routine
maintenance turned out to be asbestos.

It becomes dangerous if broken up, as dust can get into people's
lungs and cause serious illness or death. It can take up to 40
years for symptoms to manifest.

The Naval Service has since introduced protocols to identify and
deal with any asbestos found on vessels.

A total of 116 Naval Service personnel and civilian workers are
understood to have come in contact with asbestos on board the
ships or at the Naval Service's headquarters on Haulbowline
Island, Cobh.

"All Naval Service personnel have been medically screened. Medical
screening has also been undertaken for civilian employees and is
nearing completion with seven civilian staff remaining to be
seen," the spokes-woman added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builder Must Pay After Dumping Hazardous Roofing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Havergal, writing for Cambridge News, reported that a
Cambridge builder has been ordered to pay GBP420 after hazardous
waste dumped in Fen Road, Chesterton, was traced back to him. Loni
Zeka, 24, of Fallowfield, Cambridge, was undertaking refurbishment
work for a resident in Chesterton and admitted to paying.

A Cambridge builder has been ordered to pay GBP420 after hazardous
waste dumped in Fen Road, Chesterton, was traced back to him. Loni
Zeka, 24, of Fallowfield, Cambridge, was undertaking refurbishment
work for a resident in Chesterton and admitted to paying
A builder has been ordered to pay GBP420 after hazardous asbestos
roofing was dumped on the edge of Cambridge.

Loni Zeka, of Fallowfield, East Chesterton, admitted paying two
unregistered traders to take away the waste from a refurbishment
job, which was later found in Fen Road.

Zeka, 24, pleaded guilty to failing in his duty of care for waste
disposal when he appeared at Cambidge Magistrates' Court.
He was fined GBP200, and ordered to pay GBP220 costs.

Under interview, Zeka had said his main occupation was as a
gardener, and that he was not aware the asbestos sheets he removed
were hazardous.  He claimed the people he passed the waste to said
they would take it to the dump.

Following an interview with South Cambridgeshire District Council,
Zeka returned to Fen Road to collect the waste and he disposed of
it correctly.

Cllr Mick Martin, the authority's cabinet member for environmental
services, said: "I am pleased to see that on this occasion the
individual sought to right his wrong by collecting the dumped
waste and disposing of it correctly.

"We would remind local residents and businesses to only use
registered traders to take away bulky and hazardous waste -- and
please check their credentials.

"Fly tipping is a blight on our countryside and we will continue
to take action against offenders."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Left Homeless After Botched Fibro Job
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gosia Sawicka, writing for CBC News, reported that a Winnipeg
family is homeless after a botched asbestos remediation in their
Point Douglas home.

The company that did the remediation, Workman Industries, has been
issued a cease and desist order to stop using the logo of a
national certification body on its website.

"There was open bags of asbestos. There was an air filtration
machine running but with the hose running out to nowhere
basically," said Jon Cameron, the homeowners' son.  "The window
was not open, so it was more like for show."

The Point Douglas home on Austin Street has been owned by
Cameron's parents, Rafaelita and Victor Cameron, for 37 years.
They live there along with their daughter, Cherielyn Yabas, her
husband and their one month old daughter, Saffiya.

"[I'm] scared for all of us, especially for her," said Cerielyn,
looking down at her infant daughter. "She's so young."

Rafaelita Cameron had hired Sarte Heating and Cooling to replace
the old boiler system with a new high efficiency furnace, but the
company could not do the installation until the old boiler, which
was covered in asbestos, was removed.

So Sarte arranged for Workman Industries to go to the Point
Douglas home on Aug. 7 to do the remediation.

Undisturbed asbestos-containing materials generally don't pose a
health risk, according to Health Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

It's only when the asbestos is disturbed, and the dust is emitted
into the air that it poses a risk to human health, the agencies
say.  In significant quantities, asbestos fibres can cause
asbestosis and lung cancer.

"I never talked to [Workman] before [the work started]," said
Rafaelita Cameron.

Family notices 'red flags'

When the crew arrived, Rafaelita and her daughter noticed red
flags.

They said the workers were not wearing protective equipment or
masks.

Rafaelita, Yabas and her one-month-old daughter, Saffiya, were all
in and out of the home as they were not instructed to stay away.
They eventually realized there were no barriers created to
separate the basement job site from the remainder of the home.
Rafaelita said she confronted one of the workers.

"I said 'Where's the barrier? How come there's no barrier?'' she
said.

That's when she contacted her son, Jon Cameron, to step in.
Cameron video-taped the company as they removed the old asbestos
covered boiler in pieces without wrapping any of it in plastic.

"Pretty much just bare-handing these materials from the basement.
I didn't notice any masks," said Jon Cameron. "These guys were
wearing T-shirts and shorts and jeans. There was nothing to
indicate they were taking precautions in handling asbestos."

Jon Cameron contacted the province.

Workplace Safety and Health issues stop-work order

The next morning, Workplace Safety and Health issued stop-work
orders against Workman Industries and Sarte Heating and Cooling
for a botched asbestos remediation.

The orders says "Asbestos containing material is being released
into the atmosphere at this project site," and measures used to
control asbestos were not used.

The family said the agency photographed open bags of asbestos
still in the basement and told them their home and its contents
are contaminated, so they should not be there.

"It was very shocking," said Jon Cameron, "I was scared and was
very angry because this is my family, and they mean everything to
me.  There's no reason for endangering people's lives."

CBC News contacted Sarte Heating and Cooling.

The owner, Lito Mendoza, said his heart goes out to the family,
but Workman Industries should be responsible for the clean-up.

When asked why he arranged for Workman Industries to do the work,
he said he has only had one previous job with Workman and the air
quality tests done after the fact came back with good results.

Mendoza said his company has not taken a deposit from the
homeowners at this time and said he has offered to pay $500.00
towards their accommodations while they are displaced.

Construction safety association issues cease and desist order

CBC News tried to contact Workman Industries without success.

The address listed on its web page is the location where the owner
picks up his mail.

Workman's website shows a Certificate of Recognition (COR) Program
logo, certification which is typically obtained through the
Construction Safety Association of Manitoba.

Typically, the logo means a company has a safety and health
program that meets national standards.

However, when CBC News contacted the association, it said Workman
Industries has never been certified by them.

The association sent Workman Industries a cease and desist letter,
ordering them to stop improperly using the logo.

The association said the company did attend some classes in 2010
but has never completed the program.

Family wants home back

Meanwhile, Cherielyn Yabas and her family just want their home and
their lives back.

"We have nothing.  Everything's in that house," said Yabas, "It's
our home.  We just want to go home."

Jon Cameron said he wants a certified company to do the work.

"It needs to be cleaned.  It needs to be approved by a trustworthy
company," Cameron said.

"My parents need their home back. My sister and brother-in-law and
their one-month-old baby need their home back," he said. "It's a
horrible feeling to be displaced.  It's a horrible feeling to know
your family is without a home and because of no fault of their own
-- simply because they put their trust in so-called professionals
that this would be done properly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Mill Fire Spread Toxic Dust
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a fire at a Springfield,
Oregon, plywood mill spread debris and ash to a few dozen
residential properties, including two at which asbestos has been
confirmed.

Asbestos was in the plant's roofing as well as around the steam
pipes as insulation, said Chuck Wert, executive vice president of
Swanson Group.

"There was more than what we originally thought," he told the
Eugene Register-Guard.

Nearly 40 people reported debris on their properties, and owners
of 27 asked for cleanup.

Wert says a contractor has cleaned up debris at 16 residences, the
cleanup is underway at two more, and nine properties remain to be
done.

Asbestos was used for decades as fire retardant and insulation. It
is a mineral fiber that can damage the lungs if people inhale it.

Air monitoring at both properties where asbestos was confirmed
showed clean results, Wert said.

The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency has issued an abatement
permit for removing asbestos waste from the plant.  It's primarily
ash from roofing and plywood. Workers will wrap it "burrito-style
in 6-millimeter plastic" and bury it at the county landfill, said
agency spokeswoman Jo Niehaus.

Employees reported the July 17 fire began in a veneer dryer and
spread rapidly. Officials say their investigation may take a year.

Wert has said it would cost more than $100 million and up to two
years to rebuild, and whether that's done depends on the insurer's
settlement offer, yet to be made.

About 250 workers were displaced. Wert said 50 found new jobs
within the company.

Kristina Payne, executive director of Lane Workforce Partnership,
said several more were hired on the spot at a July 30 job fair
attended by more than 150 workers and 20 employers.

"People felt like there were job opportunities in our community,
and they are a sought-after work force," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Plaintiffs Move to Block Access to Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Legal Times, reported that a
group of asbestos claimants have filed an emergency motion to
seeking to block a gasket-maker going through bankruptcy from
releasing information subpoenaed by Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
North Carolina has set up a process through which the public can
review evidence in the case after interested parties first get a
chance to object.

The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants say
that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and related debtors "intend
to release sealed information that is subject to the public-access
protocol prior to any affected person having an opportunity to
seal it as contemplated by that order," Trevor Swett III, James
Wehner and Elihu Inselbuch of Caplin & Drysdale and Travis Moon of
Moon Wright & Houston wrote.

The information that could be released to Imperial Tobacco
includes a database of asbestos personal-injury claims made prior
to Garlock's bankruptcy petition and ballots cast by creditors in
dozens of asbestos bankruptcies.

Hodges estimated that Garlock likely owes $125 million to asbestos
plaintiffs, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that Garlock's
liability is around $1 billion to $1.3 billion. He made that
estimate after finding evidence of misrepresentation by
plaintiffs' lawyers in several cases that Garlock settled in the
past or in which Garlock lost jury verdicts.

When Hodges sealed the evidence, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn
Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina reversed and ordered
fact-finding about the public's right of access because of the
common law or because of the First Amendment and to consider on a
case-by-case basis whether evidence needs to be kept sealed.

On remand, Hodges "granted a procedural right to thousands of
asbestos claimants and other entities to be heard on whether this
court should maintain a seal on confidential materials and
information submitted of record in the estimation proceeding," the
plaintiffs attorneys said. "The notice of that order, which
Garlock recently served on thousands of persons, as directly by
this court, specifically assured them of an opportunity to move to
seal provisionally protected information within 30 days."

The information in the database and about the ballots may not
necessarily remain sealed, the committee said, but the unsealing
protocol should be followed in the interim.

A hearing has been scheduled on the motion for Aug. 22.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roofing Fully Removed From Warehouse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Irby, writing for Daily Mercury, reported that asbestos roof
sheeting has been fully removed from the fire damaged warehouse in
North Mackay, in Australia, that housed the Boomerang Secondhand
store destroyed by fire in late April.

Reconstruction work on the World War Two era building on Harbour
Road is expected to begin within weeks once final clearance is
given by Work Health and Safety Queensland.  The cleanup of the
historic Walkers Market shed began in mid-July and the slow
process involved removing the asbestos debris after the roof
collapsed during the blaze.

A crew from Queensland Asbestos Management Services (QAMS) are
finalising their decontamination work to ensure all particles are
removed with a final clean of the timber framework.

A Work Health and Safety Queensland spokesman said the asbestos
contaminated material and debris was transported to an asbestos
waste facility in accordance with government requirements.

Police have charged two youths with arson as a result of the fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Owes Crane Co. for $7MM Fibro Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reported that industrial products
manufacturer Crane Co. filed suit in California federal court
alleging that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. is liable for its share
of a $6.9 million verdict in underlying asbestos litigation
because Goodyear manufactured the asbestos-containing material.

Stamford, Connecticut-based Crane alleges that Goodyear must cover
its almost $800,000 share of the verdict in a wrongful death
action filed by the estate of William Paulus, who developed
mesothelioma and died as a result of his exposure to asbestos-
containing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Insulation Co. Beats Bankr. Plan Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reported that a California
federal judge rejected protests from a group of Plant Insulation
Co.'s insurance carriers to a Chapter 11 plan that creates an
asbestos injury compensation trust, ruling the plan offers the
trust a viable path for taking control of the reorganized entity.

U.S. District Judge Richard G. Seeborg upheld a bankruptcy court's
confirmation of Plant's amended reorganization plan, which the
insulation manufacturer had tweaked after the Ninth Circuit
rejected its previous version to make it cheaper for the trust to
gain a controlling stake.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Appeals for Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sian Davies, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that the
heartbroken widow of a former dockyard worker who died from an
asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues to
help with an investigation into his exposure to the deadly dust.

Kenneth Strong, known as Ken, died aged 80 from mesothelioma, a
cancer in the lining of the lungs, which is caused by exposure to
the dust found in asbestos.

Ken, from Newton Abbot, in England, died earlier this year
following a five-month battle with the disease.

His wife of 56 years, Jean, age 76, began a battle for answers as
to whether her husband was allowed to work in conditions without
appropriate protection from the deadly asbestos dust which caused
the disease.

Ken was 15 when he started an apprenticeship as a ships fitter at
Devonport Royal Dockyard, from 1948 to 1959.

Before his death, Ken recalled working on various large ships
including HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal. He would walk through the
boiler rooms to access different parts of the ship which had
pipework lagged with asbestos -- they were often very dusty with
the crumbling lagging.

He also recalled that he had not been given any protective
clothing or information about the dangers of asbestos during his
eleven years at the yard.

On August 31 last year Ken began to feel unwell and collapsed at
home. Jean took him to Torbay hospital and doctors drained six
litres of fluid from his lungs.

Medical staff advised Ken that he had suspected mesothelioma, but
he was too weak to have a lung biopsy or any chemotherapy.

In the next couple of months, Ken lost three stone in weight and
his health rapidly declined. He spent his last few days at the
Rowcroft Hospice in Torquay where he passed away.

At an inquest at the Plymouth Coroners Court on May 21, Coroner
Ian Arrow recorded Ken died from malignant mesothelioma, an
"industrial disease" as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Jean said: "It was very difficult to watch Ken become ill as he
was always very active and strong. It is an awful illness and one
that affected Ken at such a rapid rate and to think that his
illness stemmed from exposure to asbestos decades ago is hard to
come to terms with.

"Ken and I loved to travel and explore new places around the world
- we had only recently visited Delhi in India. We had planned to
have a Baltic cruise in October this year but sadly I've had to
cancel this trip.

"I hope with the help of Ken's former colleagues and Irwin
Mitchell we will be able to find some answers and secure justice
for Ken."

Ken left the dockyard to take a teacher training course in 1960
and worked at several schools across Devon, eventually ending his
teaching career as well respected head teacher.

Phoebe Osborne, an industrial disease expert at Irwin Mitchell's
Bristol office representing Jean, said: "Mesothelioma is an
aggressive and incurable cancer which causes so much distress to
victims like Ken who worked in industries such as shipping docks -
a trade where we know workers regularly came into contact with
asbestos but were not given the appropriate protection.

"We hope his former colleagues will be able to confirm Ken's
recollection of how he may have come into contact with asbestos
and whether more could potentially have been done by his employers
to protect him from the deadly dust.

"The dangers and risks of exposure to asbestos dust were
identified as early as 1948, when Ken was exposed to asbestos, yet
all too often we see workers and their families who have been left
devastated decades later because their relatives were not warned
of the dangers or given the appropriate protection."

Anyone who has any information about the working conditions at
Devonport Royal Dockyard in Plymouth between 1948 and 1959 is
asked to contact Phoebe Osborne at Irwin Mitchell on 0117 926 1549
or email phoebe.osborne@irwinmitchell.com.

THE search for answers for Ken comes as a report from the House of
Commons Justice Select Committee confirms the government made a
secret deal with the insurance industry to save them billions of
pounds at the expense of the terminally ill.

Once mesothelioma has been diagnosed victims typically have months
to live as opposed to years, and they normally need urgent legal
advice to get compensation.

The Association of British Insurers has been shown to have had
secret meetings with the government to agree their agenda, which
the government has then implemented without consulting the people
affected by this terminal condition. This was deemed by the
committee to give the insurance industry an unfair advantage.

The government did not disclose the agreement, which leads to
further speculation that they are assisting the insurance industry
as opposed to sufferers of mesothelioma.

The Committee stated that "the coalition has not been open or
transparent and their approach has been unsatisfactory on a number
of counts".

More people are killed as a result of being exposed to asbestos
than in car accidents. Asbestos related illnesses generally do not
arise until between 20 and 50 years after exposure, and it is due
to this delay that many insurers' details are lost or not properly
recorded.

Despite employers paying the appropriate premiums cover, the
insurers are still able to avoid the cost of compensating the
victims of this condition.

James Walsh, partner of Plymouth's Wolferstans Solicitors and
accredited asbestos disease specialist by the Association of
Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) said: " It has long been thought
the insurance industry and the government have been in some secret
collusion to save them money which should be paid to these poor
people suffering from mesothelioma. This now appears to be the
case.

"These victims have a very limited life expectancy during which
time they will suffer excruciating pain and breathlessness. They
will require almost constant care for which we can help provide
and fund, but barriers put in place by this collusion will only be
of detriment to the sufferers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Discovered in Dudelange School
----------------------------------------------------------
Luxemburger Wort reported that traces of asbestos have been found
in a school in Dudelange, Luxembourg, according to a Wort source.

The insulating material, which can cause major lung disorders, was
found in pipes at the "Butschebuerger Schoul" in route de
Boudersberg. No further details were available at the time of
publishing about the find. Local authorities are investigating.

Asbestos is a heat-resistant silicate mineral that can be woven
into fabric and was used as insultation in old buildings. Exposure
to asbestos can lead to asbestosis, other nonmalignant lung and
pleural disorders, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers.

It is not the first time that the material has been found in
buildings in Luxembourg.

Earlier this year, traces of asbestos were found at the Jean
Monnet building, which houses European Commission services in
Kirchberg. In 2012 asbestos fibres were found in the air at the
Aloyse-Kayser school in Belair, which in 1969 housed the
International School Luxembourg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Caps Reinsurer's Cost in Fibro Row
------------------------------------------------------------
Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360, reported that a New York
federal judge limited Global Reinsurance Corp.'s share of the more
than $60 million that Century Indemnity Co. has paid to cover
Caterpillar Tractor Co. against asbestos injury litigation,
finding that the reinsurer's liability was capped.

Relying on the Second Circuit's decision in Bellefonte Reinsurance
Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., U.S. District Judge Lorna
Schofield concluded that the "reinsurance accepted" amount --
which ranges from $250,000 to $2 million -- was the maximum that
Global would have to pay under each of nine reinsurance
certificates.

Global claimed these limits capped its exposure to the Caterpillar
asbestos claims, while Century -- which shelled out mostly for
expense, rather than loss -- insisted that those limits applied
only to loss and that the reinsurer must foot expenses above that
amount.

"The relevant language in Global's certificate is nearly identical
to the language relied on by the Second Circuit in Bellefonte,"
Judge Schofield said in her ruling. "Standing on its own, the
unambiguous language in the 'reinsurance accepted' sections of the
certificates does not differentiate between reinsurance accepted
for loss versus reinsurance accepted for expenses, but simply
provides a total cap on liability."

The judge added that if the parties meant to exclude expenses form
the total liability cap, they could have made that clearer in the
certificate language. She also rejected Century's argument that
the so-called follow the fortunes clause -- which subjects
reinsurers to the same risks as the insurer -- forced Global to
pay more than the reinsurance accepted amount.

The partial summary judgment win for Global comes following the
reinsurer's notice to the court on Aug. 16 that it would formally
drop all defenses other than the reinsurance cap defense. Judge
Schofield ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal
or disclose the next steps.

Century had covered Caterpillar Tractor under primary and excess
liability policies issued for 1962 to 1981, while taking out
reinsurance from Global for some of those years.

According to the ruling, Century has paid more than $60 million to
cover Caterpillar after that company was hit with thousands of
lawsuits brought by those claiming injuries from asbestos
exposure. Century, which continues to pay for new asbestos suits
brought against Caterpillar, turned to Global for reinsurance.

Judge Schofield found that New York, rather than Pennsylvania, law
applied to the reinsurance dispute that ensued, dealing a first
blow to Century.

She noted that all of the certificates were issued in New York and
that Global was located in New York, making likely that claims and
performance would likely happen in that state.

Century claimed that Pennsylvania law should apply because a
reinsurance intermediary was based there, but Judge Schofield
pointed out that this company was involved with only one
certificate and that even this certificate was negotiated and
agreed upon in New York.

The judge turned down Century's request for discovery on the
choice-of-law issue.

Attorneys for the parties were not immediately available to
comment.

Global Re is represented by David Pitchford and Daniel Brower of
Pitchford Law Group LLC.

Century is represented by Ellen Burrows and Daryn Rush of White &
Williams LLP.

The case is Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Century
Indemnity Co., case number 1:13-cv-06577, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Reports $940-Mil NARCO Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., reported that its asbestos liability
relating to North American Refractories Company was $940 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies,
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that have
been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease
in the vast majority of claimants.

Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories Company
(NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products
(bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). We sold
the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to indemnify NARCO with
respect to personal injury claims for products that had been
discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement).
NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. NARCO and/or
Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal injury cases
asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO asbestos-
containing products. Claimants consist largely of individuals who
allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products
in an occupational setting. These claims, and the filing of
subsequent claims, were stayed continuously since January 4, 2002,
the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy protection."

As of June 30, 2014, NARCO asbestos-related liability was $940
million; and insurance recovery for asbestos related liabilities
was at $365 million.

On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with
the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("the Bankruptcy Court")
issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company, which stayed in place
throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case. In November 2007, the
Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization (NARCO Plan of Reorganization) and it became fully
effective on April 30, 2013.

In connection with implementation of the NARCO Plan of
Reorganization, a federally authorized 524(g) trust ("NARCO
Trust") was established for the evaluation and resolution of all
existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and
NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring
all present and future individual actions in state or federal
courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure
to NARCO products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO
Trust will review submitted claims and determine award amounts in
accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved
by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants
must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other
things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award
amount. In addition, Honeywell will continue to provide input to
the detailed controls design of the NARCO Trust, and has on-going
audit rights to review and monitor claims processors' adherence to
the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures
and as a means of detecting and deterring irregularities in
claims.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, Honeywell agreed to
certain obligations which were triggered upon the effective date
of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. As agreed, during the second
quarter of 2013, we provided NARCO with $17 million in financing
and simultaneously forgave such indebtedness. We also paid $40
million to NARCO's former parent company and $16 million to
certain asbestos claimants whose claims were fully resolved during
the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings.

Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution
Procedures, subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years
2014 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter,
provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed
through the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not
count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of
the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized.

Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding
obligations which are not subject to the annual cap: (a)
previously approved payments due to claimants pursuant to
settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings which provide that a portion of these
settlements is to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are
estimated at $130 million and are expected to be paid during the
first year of trust operations ($91 million of which was paid in
2013 and $16 million of which was paid in the first six months of
2014 with an additional $4 million of which has been approved and
will be paid in the third quarter of 2014) and, (b) payments due
to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the
pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the
right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification
under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust
Distribution Procedures criteria, which amounts are estimated at
$150 million and are expected to be paid during the first two
years of trust operations.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for the amounts discussed, unsettled claims pending as
of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the
uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in
connection with the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well
as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place
throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have
a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond
2018. In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base
the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including
trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities
based on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing
rates, expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values.
Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of
the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing
products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims
filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort
system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims
experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO
asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in
the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate
of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to
estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly
accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts
and resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to
$961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a
better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have
recorded the minimum amount in the range.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is
probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and
estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our
insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers. In the second quarter of 2014 the
Company collected $130 million in connection with a receivable due
from one of its insurance carriers.

Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no
assurance that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether
there will be any NARCO-related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given
the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review
our estimates periodically, and update them based on our
experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will
reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance
recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or
other developments that may impact insurance recoveries.

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In July 2014, the Company announced that it has completed
the sale of its Friction Materials (FM) business to Federal-Mogul.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Discloses $667-Mil. Bendix Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., disclosed that its Bendix asbestos-
related liability was $667 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Like many other industrial companies, Honeywell is a defendant in
personal injury actions related to asbestos. We did not mine or
produce asbestos, nor did we make or sell insulation products or
other construction materials that have been identified as the
primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of
claimants.

Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business
manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from
either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

As of June 30, 2014, Bendix asbestos-related liability was $667
million; and insurance recovery for asbestos related liabilities
was at $144 million.

For the Six-Months ended June 30, 2014, there are 13,192 Bendix-
related asbestos claims.

It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or
stabilize in the future.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of
the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos
claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using
average resolution values for the previous five years. We update
the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending
and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future
NARCO-related asbestos claims liability.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance
receivables equal to approximately 35 percent of the value of the
underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are
gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies,
certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is
expected to decline for any future Bendix-related asbestos
liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may
also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future
insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations
relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict.
Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current
levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could
decline over the next five years to approximately 29 percent.

Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the "Variable Claims Factors") do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change.

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In July 2014, the Company announced that it has completed
the sale of its Friction Materials (FM) business to Federal-Mogul.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not
material to the periods presented.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As
a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments. For the six months ended June 30, 2014,
and 2013, expense for asbestos-related litigation was $0.6
million, and $0.5 million, net of insurance recoveries,
respectively."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 8,100 Fibro Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 8,100 claimants involved in asbestos claims with Cytec
Industries Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are the subject of numerous lawsuits and
claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our
predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating
to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos,
environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property
matters.

"As of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the aggregate self-
insured and insured contingent liability was $46.5 and $46.9,
respectively, and the related insurance recovery receivable for
the liability as well as claims for past payments was $19.9 and
$20.0 at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The
asbestos liability included in the above amounts at June 30, 2014
and December 31, 2013 was $37.7 and $37.9, respectively, and the
insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims
for past payments was $19.5 and $19.6 at June 30, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, respectively. We anticipate receiving a net tax
benefit for payment of those claims for which full insurance
recovery is not realized.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one
of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the
U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or
formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for
specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous
defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically,
most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed
without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no
assurances that this pattern will continue.

"For the Six-Months Ended June 30, 2014, there are 8,100 claimants
involved in asbestos claims with the Company.

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049.

"In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of
$2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for
indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims
and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for
probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims.
The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim
filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement
value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of
the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future
claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48%
of our future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage-In-
Place-Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers.

"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $815.7MM Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters was
$815.7 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either IR-New Jersey or Trane
U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure
to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-
New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or
manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured
products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets
and packings purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

* the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

* the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

* the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to
file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company
based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

* an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

* an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to
determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims,
by type of disease claimed;

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

* an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, over 80% of the open
claims against the Company are non-malignancy or non-specified
claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral
dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no
settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of
recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company's liability for asbestos-related
matters was $815.7 million; and the asset for probable asbestos-
related insurance recoveries was $313.3 million.

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of June 30, 2014. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's
unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims
that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding
defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery,
and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013, IR-New
Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an insurer
that was not a party to the 2012 action.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

* a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR-
New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in
recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's
favorable settlement;

* the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

* the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been
the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it
has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and
residential security businesses named Allegion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $2.25-Bil. Net Fibro Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were
$2.25 billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a
number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements).

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first six months
of 2014 were $100 million, compared with $99 million in the same
period of 2013. Net asbestos reserves were $2.25 billion at June
30, 2014, compared with $2.28 billion at June 30, 2013.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products
that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the
Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers
Companies, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Incurs $3MM in Settlement Expense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement-net expense was
$3 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended
plan of reorganization of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC"),
as amended, until the Funding Effective Date. On the Funding
Effective Date, PPG will relinquish any claim to its equity
interest in PC, convey the stock it owns in Pittsburgh Corning
Europe and transfer 1,388,889 shares of PPG's common stock or cash
equal to the fair value of such shares as defined in the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement. PPG will make aggregate pre-tax cash
payments to the Trust of approximately $825 million, payable
according to a fixed payment schedule over a period ending in
2023. The first payment is due on the Funding Effective Date. PPG
would have the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these pre-
tax cash payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of
5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG's historical
insurance carriers participating in the third amended PC plan of
reorganization will also make cash payments to the Trust of
approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding Effective Date and
2027. These payments could also be prepaid to the Trust at any
time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment
date. PPG will grant asbestos releases and indemnifications to all
participating insurers, subject to amended coverage-in-place
arrangements with certain insurers for remaining coverage of
premises claims. PPG will grant certain participating insurers
full policy releases on primary policies and full product
liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will also
grant certain other participating excess insurers credit against
their product liability coverage limits.

PPG's obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at
December 31, 2008 was $162 million less than the amount that would
have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This
reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated provisions in
the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the provisions
relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG retains
liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such
amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be
channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents PPG's best
estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have
sufficient current claim information or settlement history on
which to base a better estimate of this liability, in light of the
fact that the Bankruptcy Court's stay has been in effect since
2000. As a result, PPG's reserve at June 30, 2014 and December 31,
2013 for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the
Trust is $162 million. This amount is included within "Other
liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In
addition, under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will
retain for its own account rights to recover proceeds from certain
historical insurance assets, including policies issued by non-
participating insurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would
have been assigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG
Settlement Arrangement.

Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy
Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos
claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the third
amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimated
liability for such claims and related insurance assets then
available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on a
periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reserve
for these claims is required.

Of the total obligation of $1,044 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at June 30, 2014, $792 million is reported
as a current liability and $252 million is reported as a non-
current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion of
the liability will total $88 million and be reported as expense in
the condensed consolidated statement of income over the period
through 2023.

For the three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company's asbestos
settlement-net expense was $3 million, resulting from the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement including the change in fair value of the
stock to be transferred to the Trust and the equity forward
instrument and the increase in the net present value of the future
payments to be made to the Trust.

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and
decorative coatings. Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and
Architectural Coatings- EMEA segments supply protective and
decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets,
including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-
finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine
and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other
industrial and consumer products. The Optical and Specialty
Materials segment consist of the optical products and silicas
businesses. PPG is a producer and supplier of basic chemicals.
Glass segment produces flat glass and continuous-strand fiber
glass. In July 2014, PPG acquired Masterwork Paint Co. In July
2014, the Company announced that its North American architectural
coatings business has completed acquisition of The Homax Group,
Inc., supplier of decorative wall and ceiling texture repair
products, from Olympus Partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has 25,000 Active Pending PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at both June 30, 2014
and December 31, 2013. We have accrued $82 for indemnity and
defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at June 30,
2014, compared to $88 at December 31, 2013. We use a fifteen-year
time horizon for our estimate of this liability.

"At June 30, 2014, we had recorded $52 as an asset for probable
recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected asbestos
personal injury liability claims, compared to $55 recorded at
December 31, 2013. The recorded asset represents our assessment of
the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for
the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending
claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these
recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover
under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of
the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place with our
insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and
payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial
strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the
assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent
the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we
would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity and
defense costs.

"As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets and liabilities
associated with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation
which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated
wholly-owned subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC
include insurance rights relating to coverage against these
liabilities, marketable securities and other assets which we
believe are sufficient to satisfy its liabilities. Dana Companies,
LLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $9-Mil. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation reported $9 million in asbestos-related
liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

* The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

* The number of claims filed against us will decline each year.

* The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted claims
will be equivalent to historical averages.

* The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 20% of the recorded liability is
related to asserted claims and approximately 80% is related to
unasserted claims at June 30, 2014.

"For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2014, the Company's asbestos-
related liability was $9 million.

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2014, and December
31, 2013.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its
principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links
23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific
Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.
Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the
United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems
division of Ansaldo STS USA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge & Iron Has 1,500 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,500 asbestos-related
claims pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through June 30, 2014, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,500 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,500 claims were pending and 4,000 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through June 30, 2014, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that
any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect
on our future results of operations, financial position or cash
flow, and at June 30, 2014, we had approximately $4,700 accrued
for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted
asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential
claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability
of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any.
While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and
unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification
arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the
amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the
variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or
the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies
for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an energy infrastructure
focused company and provider of government services. The Company
operates in four segments: Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance, which offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities; Fabrication
Services, which provides fabrication of piping systems, process
and nuclear modules, fabrication and erection of steel plate
storage tanks and pressure vessels for oil and gas and power
generation industries; Technology, which offers licensed process
technologies, specialized equipment, and engineered products for
use in petrochemical facilities, oil refineries, and gas
processing plants and provides process planning and project
development services, and Government Solutions, which undertakes
programs and projects, including design-build infrastructure
projects for federal, state and local governments, as well as
offers environmental services for government and private sector
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,522 Claims as of June 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 22,522 unresolved asbestos-related claims
and a long-term asbestos liability of $343,076,000, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2014.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-
handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden
and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's
products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler,
Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech,
Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has
production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers
customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer
needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V.
In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012,
Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the
Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. In April 2014, Colfax
Corporation completed the acquisition of Victor Technologies
Holdings Inc from Irving Place Capital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,500 Pending Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. has determined that there were
approximately 5,500 asbestos-related claims pending against it,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2014.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos containing components
manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While the Company has
observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past
several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma
related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not
presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been
dismissed by the courts. The Company's historical strategy has
been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before
trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been
dismissed, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will
be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition,
the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving
asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of
assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's
indirect subsidiaries, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against
Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of
reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to
negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of
reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to
provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current
and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate
injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other
protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from
products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. Upon
confirmation of such plan of reorganization, the Company expects
to deconsolidate Yarway and to settle intercompany accounts,
including approximately $100 million in intercompany liabilities.
As a result of filing the voluntary petition during the third
quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected loss upon
deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway bankruptcy
petition. Since filing for bankruptcy protection, Yarway has
negotiated with representatives of the committees representing
current and future asbestos claimants, but has been unable to
agree on a plan of reorganization acceptable to all parties. We
believe that certain claims made by the asbestos claimants are
without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
There can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome in the
Bankruptcy Court would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

As of June 27, 2014, the Company has determined that there were
approximately 5,500 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or
entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against such entities and includes adjustments for
claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect
defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the
Company is indemnified.

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

As of June 27, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability of $148
million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related
defense costs of $310 million, and separately as an asset for
insurance recoveries of $162 million. The Company believes that
its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as
of June 27, 2014 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 27,
2013, the Company's estimated net liability of $169 million was
recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $321 million, and separately as an asset for insurance
recoveries of $152 million.

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

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely
linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will
impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or
assumption predominately influences the determination of the
Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which
provides security products and services, fire protection and
detection products and services, valves and controls, and other
industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide,
Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal
Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired
two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e
Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve
manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the
oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. In May 2014, the
Company announced that it has completed the sale of Tyco Fire &
Security Services Korea Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries that form
and operate the South Korean security business to The Carlyle
Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. Inks Deal To Resolve Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. entered into an agreement resolving all
present and future asbestos personal injury claims related to
Bondex International, Inc., and other related entities, according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2014.

RPM International Inc. announced an agreement in principle with
the official representatives of current and future claimants that
would resolve all present and future asbestos personal injury
claims related to Bondex International, Inc. and other related
entities. The agreement in principle contemplates the filing of a
plan of reorganization with the United States Bankruptcy Court in
Delaware. The plan will be subject to approval of the claimants,
as well as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and U.S. District Court.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, a trust will be
established under Section 524(g) of the United States Bankruptcy
Code for the benefit of current and future asbestos personal
injury claimants, funded as follows:

* Upon the plan becoming effective, the trust will be funded with
$450 million in cash;

* On or before the second anniversary of the effective date of the
plan, an additional $102.5 million in cash, RPM stock or a
combination thereof (at the discretion of RPM in this and all
subsequent cases) will be deposited into the trust;

* On or before the third anniversary of the effective date of the
plan, an additional $120 million in cash, RPM stock or a
combination thereof will be deposited into the trust; and

* On or before the fourth anniversary of the effective date of the
plan, a final payment of $125 million in cash, RPM stock or a
combination thereof will be deposited into the trust.

These contributions to the trust total $797.5 million and are
expected to be tax deductible. RPM estimates the after-tax net
present value of the contributions to be approximately $485
million. The company anticipates that the cash necessary to
initially fund the trust will be provided from amounts available
under its revolving credit facilities and available cash
resources. However, depending upon market conditions, RPM may
determine to finance all or a portion of the contributions through
the debt capital markets.

Pursuant to the agreement, Bondex's parent company, Specialty
Products Holding Corp. ("SPHC"), will remain a wholly owned
subsidiary of RPM and its results of operations will be
reconsolidated with those of RPM for financial reporting purposes
effective upon consummation of the plan. SPHC had revenues of
approximately $385 million during the 12 months ended May 31,
2014, compared with revenues of approximately $300 million for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2010, when the bankruptcy commenced.
Virtually all of SPHC's growth over that period has been organic.
The company anticipates that reconsolidating SPHC's results will
be accretive to RPM's earning per share in the first year, in part
because the accounting rules that required RPM to record SPHC's
non-controlling interests in certain RPM subsidiaries as a non-
cash reduction to net income will no longer apply upon
consummation of the plan.

The Company states, "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 SPHC's growing and profitable businesses," stated Frank
Sullivan, chairman and chief executive officer of RPM.
"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 expects the Bankruptcy Court will schedule future proceedings
regarding this matter. The company expects to provide additional
details on the financial impact of the agreement upon consummation
of the plan, which is currently expected by the end of fiscal
2015.

RPM International Inc., a holding company, owns subsidiaries that
are world leaders in specialty coatings, sealants, building
materials and related services serving both industrial and
consumer markets. RPM's industrial products include roofing
systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings
and specialty chemicals. Industrial brands include Stonhard,
Tremco, illbruck, Carboline, Flowcrete, Universal Sealants,
Fibergrate and Euco. RPM's consumer products are used by
professionals and do-it-yourselfers for home maintenance and
improvement and by hobbyists. Consumer brands include Zinsser,
Rust-Oleum, DAP, Varathane and Testors. Additional details can be
found at www.RPMinc.com and by following RPM on Twitter at
www.twitter.com/RPMintl.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 14,800 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., is co-defendant in cases alleging
asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 14,800
plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

At June 30, 2014, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging
asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 14,800
plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 257 claims from those
previously reported. In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 42,076
of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to defense verdicts,
seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of which is being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 646 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sale of Armstrong Shares Could Change Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., said an additional sale of its
common shares by the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust prior to
December 2015 would be reasonably likely to cause an "ownership
change," according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "In March 2014, we announced the commencement
of a secondary public offering (the "Offering") of 3,900,000
shares of our common stock held by Armor TPG Holdings LLC ("TPG")
and the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust ("Asbestos PI Trust").

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

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

"We have determined as of June 30, 2014, the completion of the
latest Offering did not result in an "ownership change" under
Section 382, based on the size of the Offering and the factors
discussed. Together the Asbestos PI Trust and TPG collectively
sold 5,980,000 shares, 12,057,382 shares and 6,000,000 shares of
the Company's common shares during the fourth quarter of 2012, the
third quarter of 2013 and the fourth quarter of 2013,
respectively. Those sales, when combined with the 3,900,000 common
shares sold in the Offering, significantly increase the likelihood
that future sales by the Asbestos PI Trust will cause an
"ownership change" under Section 382. At this time, we estimate
that an additional sale of the Company's common shares by the
Asbestos PI Trust prior to December 2015 would be reasonably
likely to cause an "ownership change" under Section 382. An
"ownership change" may result in limitations on the utilization of
certain tax attributes, primarily our ability to deduct state net
operating losses ("NOLs") against future state taxable income. If
such "ownership change" were to occur, then we would be required
to record a one-time, non-cash charge in our income statement in
the period in which such "ownership change" occurs. We currently
estimate that, if such "ownership change" had occurred in the
second quarter of 2014, based on the factors discussed, the one-
time income tax charge that would have been taken would have
reduced our net earnings by an amount between $4.0 million and
$8.0 million. This pro forma estimated range of net earnings
reduction is based on current management estimates and assumptions
that are subject to change over time. The actual amount of the
required charge, if any, may differ materially from this current
estimate. Key factors impacting the calculation include, but are
not limited to, our stock price on the date of the "ownership
change", the applicable tax-exempt interest rate, the tax basis
and fair market value of our assets, federal and state tax
regulations, projections of future taxable income and prior NOL
usage.

"Total other comprehensive income ("OCI") was $4.6 million and
$9.5 million for the second quarters of 2014 and 2013,
respectively, and was $10.7 million and $16.5 million for the
first six months of 2014 and 2013, respectively. Foreign currency
translation adjustments represent the change in the U.S. dollar
value of assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies.
Amounts in the first six months of 2014 were driven primarily by
changes in the exchange rates of the British Pound, the Australian
dollar and the Chinese Renminbi. Amounts in the second quarter of
2014 and the second quarter and first six months of 2013 were
driven primarily by changes in the exchange rates of the
Australian dollar and the British Pound. Derivative gain/loss
represents the mark to market value adjustments of our derivative
assets and liabilities and the recognition of gains and losses
previously deferred in OCI. The period change is primarily due to
the mark to market changes related to our interest rate swap
derivatives. Pension and postretirement adjustments represent the
amortization of actuarial gains and losses related to our defined-
benefit pension and postretirement plans. The amounts in all
periods primarily related to the amortization of losses on the
U.S. pension plans."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Housing Auth.'s Suit v. G-I Holdings Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the behest of G-I Holdings Inc., Bankruptcy Judge Rosemary
Gambardella in New Jersey dismissed, with prejudice, the New York
City Housing Authority's Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory
Relief against the debtor.

NYCHA has not stated plausible claims in its Complaint sufficient
to withstand G-I's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the Judge
said.

NYCHA initiated the adversary proceeding against G-I on September
7, 2012, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically,
NYCHA seeks to (1) obtain an affirmative mandatory injunction
pursuant to Rule 7001(7) ordering G-I to take all necessary action
to prevent future asbestos fiber release during removals of G-I's
asbestos-containing materials as required by New York State, New
York City and Federal law and for other equitable relief; (2)
obtain a declaration of rights that NYCHA's claims for past and
future relief are not subject to discharge under the Bankruptcy
Code; and (3) obtain a ruling that NYCHA's post-petition expenses
to prevent unsafe conditions from arising on the removal of G-I's
asbestos-containing products are administrative expenses under 11
U.S.C. Sec. 503(b).

A copy of the Court's Aug. 12 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/dYQPfcfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. G-I
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, ADV. NO. 12-1903(RG) (Bankr. D.N.J.).

Counsel for the Consolidated Debtor, G-I Holdings, Inc.:

     Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq.
     Mark E. Hall, Esq.
     RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
     One Speedwell Avenue
     Headquarters Plaza
     Morristown, NJ 07962-1981
     Tel: 973-451-8485
     E-mail: dogrady@riker.com
             mhall@riker.com

          - and -

     Andrew J. Rossman, Esq.
     Scott C. Shelley, Esq.
     Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, L.P.
     51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Tel: 212-849-7000
     Fax: 212-849-7100
     E-mail: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com
             scottshelley@quinnemanuel.com
             jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

     Marc J. Kurzman, Esq.
     CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK, HENNESSEY L.L.P.
     707 Summer Street, Suite 300
     Stamford, CT 06901 US
     Tel: 203-425-4200
     Fax: 203-325-8608

Co-Counsel for New York City Housing Authority.

     Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.
     FOX ROTHSCHILD, L.L.P.
     Princeton Pike Corporate Center
     997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
     Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311
     Tel: 609-896-3600
     Fax: 609-896-1469
     E-mail: jmpollock@foxrothschild.com

          - and -

     Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C.
     280 N Old Woodward Ave Ste 407
     Birmingham, MI 48009
     Tel: (248) 647-9300

          - and -

     Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
     COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
     127 Maple Avenue
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Tel: 732-747-9003
     Toll Free: 888-375-7600
     Fax: 732-747-9004
     E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com

                        About G-I Holdings

Based in Wayne, New Jersey, G-I Holdings, Inc., is a holding
company that indirectly owns Building Materials Corporation of
America, a manufacturer of premium residential and commercial
roofing products.  The Company filed for bankruptcy after already
spending $1.5 billion paying asbestos claims from the 1967
acquisition of Ruberoid Co.

G-I Holdings, Inc., fka GAF Corporation, filed a chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D. N.J. Case No. 01-30135) on Jan. 5, 2001, and
continued to operate its business as a debtor-in-possession
pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.
ACI, Inc., a subsidiary of G-I Holdings, filed a voluntary chapter
11 petition (Bankr. D. N.J. Case No. 01-38790) on Aug. 3, 2001.
On Oct. 10, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order directing
the joint administration of the G-I Holdings and ACI bankruptcy
cases.

Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq., and Mark E. Hall, Esq., at Riker, Danzig,
Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, serve as co-counsel to the
Reorganized Debtors.  Andrew J. Rossman, Esq., and Jacob J.
Waldman, Esq., at Quinn Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, serve
as special counsel to Reorganized Debtors.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors was appointed on
Jan. 18, 2001, by the U.S. Trustee to represent those individuals
who allegedly suffered injuries related to asbestos exposure from
products manufactured by the predecessors of G-I Holdings.
Lowenstein Sandler PC represents the Unsecured Creditors
Committee.  On Oct. 10, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court appointed C.
Judson Hamlin as the Legal Representative, a fiduciary to
represent the interests of persons who hold present and future
asbestos-related claims against G-I.  Keating, Muething & Klekamp,
P.L.L., is the principal counsel to the Legal Representative of
Present and Future Asbestos-Related Demands.

G-I Holdings is the successor-in-interest to GAF Corporation, an
entity named in approximately 500,000 asbestos-related lawsuits.
The Committee submitted that, as successor-in-interest to GAF, G-I
Holdings remained liable for roughly 150,000 asbestos-related
lawsuits filed, but unresolved, as of the Petition Date and for
unknown numbers of asbestos-related claims that would be filed in
the future.

In early 1994, GAF Building Materials Corporation, an indirect
subsidiary of GAF, formed a new corporation as a wholly-owned
subsidiary known as Building Materials Corporation of America.
Pursuant to that transaction, BMCA received substantially all of
the assets of GAF's roofing products business and expressly
assumed $204 million of asbestos-related liability, with G-I
indemnifying BMCA against any additional such liability.  BMCA,
also an indirect subsidiary of G-I Holdings, is the primary
operating subsidiary and principal asset of G-I Holdings.

In early 2007, the Debtors, the Committee and the Legal
Representative commenced mediation under the auspices of former
United States District Judge Nicholas H. Politan in an effort to
resolve the asbestos-related lawsuits.  Subsequently, the Parties
outlined the principal terms of a global settlement and endeavored
to complete a final global settlement with comprehensive
documentation in the form of a proposed Chapter 11 plan and its
ancillary documents.  To preserve the status quo, the Parties
mutually agreed to request a stay of all litigation which would be
covered under the final global settlement from this Court and
other courts of competent jurisdiction.  Although lengthy and
initially unsuccessful, the negotiations continued until the
parties reached a settlement culminating in an agreement in early
August 2008.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the Parties filed the Joint Plan of
Reorganization of G-I Holdings Inc. and ACI Inc. Pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code that implemented the Global
Settlement of all asbestos-related lawsuits naming G-I Holdings
and any other related entities as defendant(s).  The Joint Plan of
Reorganization provided for the creation of an asbestos trust
pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, to which all
asbestos-related lawsuits against the Debtors now and in the
future would be channeled.  Pursuant to the Global Settlement, the
Asbestos Trust would assume the Debtors' liability for asbestos-
related lawsuits, in exchange for cash on the effective date of
the Joint Plan of Reorganization in an amount not to exceed $215
million, and a note in the amount of $560 million issued by the
reorganized Debtors and secured by a letter of credit.

The Bankruptcy Court and Chief Judge Garrett Brown of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, by Order dated Nov.
12, 2009, jointly approved the Debtors' Eighth Amended Joint Plan
of Reorganization.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Flips Ruling in Fibro Admin. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Department of Public Health on February 18, 2008,
issued a "notice of emergency work stop order" to Lake
Environmental, Inc., halting its work on an asbestos removal
project at Scott Air Force Base.  On September 18, 2008, IDPH
moved for voluntary dismissal of the emergency stop work order
proceedings on mootness grounds.  The following day, Damon T.
Arnold, in his then capacity as Director of IDPH, granted, with
prejudice, the motion for voluntary dismissal.  On March 25, 2010,
the IDPH sent Lake Environmental a notice of intent to revoke the
plaintiff's asbestos contractor's license, alleging as the basis
for revocation noncompliance by the plaintiff with applicable laws
and regulations, all related to the Scott Air Force Base project
in 2008.  Administrative proceedings followed, and ultimately, on
July 28, 2011, Arnold issued a final administrative decision that
revoked the plaintiff's license.  Lake Environmental filed a
complaint for administrative review of that decision was filed in
the circuit court on August 30, 2011.

On July 3, 2012, the plaintiff Lake Environmental, filed a motion,
pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for sanctions against
defendants LaMar Hasbrouck, in his capacity as Director of Public
Health, and the IDPH.  The motion was denied, and the plaintiff
now appeals.

In an opinion dated July 10, 2014, the Appellate Court of
Illinois, Fifth Circuit, reversed the order of the circuit court,
after determining that the trial judge in the case at bar provided
no explanation for his denial of sanctions, and remanded the case
with directions.

The appellate case is LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. DAMON T. ARNOLD, in His Capacity as Director of
Public Health, and THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 5-13-0109 (Il. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/cra6Iufrom Leagle.com.

David L. Antognoli, Anthony Catalfamo, Goldenberg, Heller,
Antognoli & Rowland, P.C., 2227 South State Route 157,
Edwardsville, IL 62025.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor
General, Laura Wunder, Assistant Attorney General, 100 West
Randolph Street, 12th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Upholds Pneumo Abex Apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------
A jury determined James A. Lovelace contracted pleural
mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure and awarded him $2,072,164
in economic and noneconomic damages.  The jury apportioned 13% of
the fault to Pneumo Abex LLC, a manufacturer of automobile brake
parts that contained asbestos.  On appeal, Abex contends: (1) The
trial court's mid-trial application of Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.
(2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, constituted an unfair surprise that
threw Abex's defense "into disarray." (2) Insufficient evidence
supported the jury's finding Abex is responsible for 13% of the
fault for James's injuries.

The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento,
rejected Abex's claim that the trial court erred by applying
Campbell, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 15 during trial.  The Court of
Appeals said Abex has not addressed the second ground on which the
trial court based its decision, namely, that Abex failed to
demonstrate due diligence in failing to request a continuance of
trial.  That separate ground suffices to affirm the denial of the
motion for new trial, the Court of Appeals ruled.  The court then
concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding
Abex was 13 percent at fault for James's injuries.  Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

The case is MICHAEL LOVELACE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PNEUMO
ABEX LLC, Defendant and Appellant, NO. C072371 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision dated July 25, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/5I2YxPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Court Flips Ruling in Trespassing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maui Muscle Sports Club Kahana, LLC, filed on November 26, 2012, a
complaint alleging Association of Apartment Owners of Valley Isle
Resort, was trespassing on Maui Muscle's property, the Commercial
Unit, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief.  The
following day, Maui Muscle filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction to enjoin AOAO from obtaining a demolition/building
permit from the County to complete work on the Commercial Unit and
entering the Commercial Unit.  Maui Muscle alleged that AOAO and
its representatives had repeatedly entered the Commercial Unit
after the fire loss, removed Maui Muscle property, and brought
contractors onto the site to perform demolition work. These
actions, according to Maui Muscle, would impair efforts to
preserve evidence for insurance adjustment purposes and thus
result in irreparable harm to "Maui Muscle's rights to recover for
their considerable loss from the blaze." Maui Muscle further
alleged that the burnt premises had been "deemed hazardous due to
asbestos content and may only be disturbed by . . . trained and
licensed hazmat crews." AOAO's contractors are allegedly not
licensed to remediate asbestos and therefore AOAO's "improper
demolition" exposed Maui Muscle to liability.

Maui Muscle appeals from the order granting AOAO's motion for
summary judgment and order denying Maui Muscle's motion for
preliminary injunction.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals of
Hawaii, in a memorandum opinion dated July 23, 2014, ruled that
the oral order did not order Maui Muscle to refrain from alleging
its ownership rights in the commercial property and that the
circuit court's finding that Maui Muscle violated the oral order
constituted an abuse of discretion that is reversible on appeal.

The case is MAUI MUSCLE SPORTS CLUB KAHANA, LLC, A HAWAI'I LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF VALLEY ISLE RESORT, A HAWAI'I NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-50, JANE DOES 1-50, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-
50, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, AND DOE ENTITIES 1-50, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. CAAP-13-0000452 (Haw. App.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/jwlw8qwfrom
Leagle.com.

Tom Pierce, Peter N. Martin, (Tom Pierce, Attorney at Law), for
Plaintiff-Appellant.  Michael L. Lam, Lauren Sharkey, Lisa K.
Johnson, (Case Lombardi & Pettit), for Defendant-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmates' Suits to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona issued separate orders dismissing pro se civil
rights complaints filed by inmates with leave to amend.  The
inmates, confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, allege,
among other things the presence of asbestos in the facility and
personal injury as a result of the exposure to asbestos.

The cases are:

   * Ricardo Angel Moran, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants, NO. CV 14-1414-PHX-DGC (JFM)(D. Ariz.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July 29, 2014, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/me9yqdlfrom Leagle.com.

   * James Ryan Murphy, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-1453-PHX-DGC (MEA)(D.
Ariz.).  A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July
29, 2014, is available at http://tinyurl.com/kkvfaozfrom
Leagle.com.

   * Richard Douglas Ostler, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Durango
Jail, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-1456-PHX-DGC (JFM)(D. Ariz.).
A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July 28, 2014,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/l8r84y5from Leagle.com.

   * Peter Robles, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants, NO. CV 14-1455-PHX-DGC (DKD)(D. Ariz.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July 29, 2014, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/mplrh9hfrom Leagle.com.

   * Justin Andrew Russell, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Durango
Jail, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-1401-PHX-DGC (BSB)(D. Ariz.).
A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July 28, 2014,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/lgjlq4vfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Pickard" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Geanie and Jimmy Pickard filed a lawsuit and alleged
that Geanie Pickard contracted an asbestos-related disease,
including mesothelioma, from exposure to defendants' asbestos-
containing products.  Geanie was allegedly exposed to these
asbestos-containing products through her son, Scott, who worked
with and around these products and then brought asbestos dust and
fibers into the family home and vehicles.  The Plaintiffs bring
state law claims for strict liability, negligence, willful and
wanton conduct, conspiracy, and loss of consortium.  Defendant
Union Carbide Corporation alleges the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, has
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (a)(1) and
that it is entitled to remove the action to federal court despite
the presence of a Missouri defendant because that defendant, Welco
Manufacturing Company, has been fraudulently joined to defeat
removal.

Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a
memorandum and order of remand dated July 28, 2014, remanded the
action to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-Second Judicial
Circuit, St. Louis City, Missouri, from which it was removed after
determining that Welco is not fraudulently joined so as to defeat
removal jurisdiction.

The case is GEANIE PICKARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAP, Inc. et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV1290 CDP (E.D. Mo.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Perry's Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/mxosp7wfrom Leagle.com.

Geanie Pickard and Jimmy Pickard, Plaintiffs, represented by Dawn
M. Besserman, MAUNE AND RAICHLE, LLC.

DAP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI
SHULTZ LLC & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Domco Produts Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth Kamp
Veath, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Patrick D.
Murphy, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Defendant, represented by Virginia M.
Giokaris, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C..

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew E. Pelikan,
WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Mary A.
Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Flips Ruling in "Galliher" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an personal injury and wrongful death case, Defendant-
Below/Appellant/Cross-Appellee R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc.,
appeals from a Superior Court judgment on a jury verdict of
$2,864,583 plus interest to Plaintiff-Below/Appellees/Cross-
Appellant Darcel Galliher, individually and on behalf of the
Estate of Michael Galliher.  The decedent, Michael Galliher,
contracted and died from mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos or asbestiform material while employed by Borg Warner at
a bathroom fixtures facility.  Vanderbilt provided industrial talc
to Borg Warner, which is alleged to be the source of the substance
that caused Michael's mesothelioma.  At trial, Vanderbilt denied
causation and claimed that Borg Warner was responsible because it
did not operate the facility in a manner that was safe for
employees like Michael.

The Supreme Court of Delaware, in an opinion dated July 24, 2014,
reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter for new
trial.  In support of its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that
because the trial court erred in instructing the jury and abused
its discretion in denying Vanderbilt a new trial, the Supreme
Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the
case for a new trial.

The case is R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY INC., Defendant Below-
Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. DARCEL GALLIHER, individually and as
special administrator for the ESTATE OF MICHAEL GALLIHER,
deceased, Plaintiff Below-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, NO. 510, 2013
(Del.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/kh644pufrom Leagle.com.

Nicholas E. Skiles, Esquire, Joseph Naylor, Esquire, Swartz
Campbell LLC, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Of Counsel: Pratik A. Shah, Esquire (argued), Patricia A Millet,
Esquire, Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

David W. deBruin, Esquire, The deBruin Firm LLC, Wilmington,
Delaware for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.  Of Counsel: William A.
Kohlburn, Esquire (argued), of Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides
& Barnerd LLC, Alton, Illinois for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Recommended in Inmates' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William L. Ridenour and Tommy Lee Brown, state
prisoners at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, filed an
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that defendants
have deliberately exposed them to dangerously high levels of
unabated asbestos in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  The
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, on July 21,
2014, issued a report and recommendation recommending that the
defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.  In support of
his recommendation, Judge Abel said the Plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate that any individual defendant knew of and disregarded
an excessive risk to the Plaintiffs' health or safety.

The case is William L. Ridenour and Tommy Lee Brown, Plaintiffs,
v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-00493 (S.D. Ohio.).  A full-
text copy of the magistrate judge's recommendation is available at
http://tinyurl.com/qdd54b2from Leagle.com.

William L Ridenour, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Tommy Lee Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant,
represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's
Office.

Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Defendant, represented by
Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's Office.

Robin Knab, Warden, In her Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney
General's Office.

Tim Brunsman, Former Warden, In his Individual and Official
Capacities, Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio
Attorney General's Office.

Leah Bobb-Itt, Deputy Warden of Operations, In his Individual and
Official Capacities, Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell
Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's Office.

Brian Wittrup, Deputy Warden of Operations, In his Individual and
Official Capacities, Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell
Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's Office.

Drew Hildebrand, Deputy Warden of Administration, In his
Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant, represented by
Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's Office.

Steve Clever, Major, In his Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney
General's Office.

Steve Brooks, In his Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney
General's Office.

Kenny Black, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant,
represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney General's
Office.

Daylen Burton, In his Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio Attorney
General's Office.

John/Jane Does times 100, In their Individual and Official
Capacities, Defendant, represented by Debra L Gorrell Wehrle, Ohio
Attorney General's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Robinson" Suit Transferred to Wyoming Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted the motions for summary
judgment filed by defendants Warren Pumps LLC in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit captioned WILLIAM J. ROBINSON and
GAIL A. ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 11-4078 (FSH)(D.N.J.), and
defendants Flowserve's, General Electric's, Goulds Pumps', and
Tata Chemical's motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Wyoming.

A full-text copy of the July 23, 2014, Decision with respect to
Warren's motion is available at http://tinyurl.com/p544tdqfrom
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the July 23, 2014, Decision with respect to
the motion to transfer is available at http://tinyurl.com/lj52d2c
from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by MOSHE MAIMON, LEVY,
PHILIPS & KONIGSBERG, LLP, HOLLY CHRISTINE PETERSON, LEVY PHILLIPS
& KONIGSBERG LLP & ROBERT E. LYTLE, SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN &
BLADER, PC.

GAIL A. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by MOSHE MAIMON, LEVY,
PHILIPS & KONIGSBERG, LLP,HOLLY CHRISTINE PETERSON, LEVY PHILLIPS
& KONIGSBERG LLP, JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN, SZAFERMAN, LAKIND,
BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC & ROBERT E. LYTLE, SZAFERMAN,
LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC.

William Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by William Robinson.

A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, doing business as A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Cross Defendant,
represented by JOSEPH D. RASNEK, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
CARPENTER, LLP.

ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, formerly known as GENERAL CHEMICAL,
Defendant and Cross Defendant represented by JEFFREY A. CARR,
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by THOMAS J. KELLY, JR., VASIOS, KELLY
& STROLLO, PC.

CARRIER CORPORATION, also known as BRYANT MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by LINTON W. TURNER, JR., CRAWSHAW, MAYFIELD, TURNER,
O'MARA, DONNELLY & MCBRIDE,.

CBS CORPORATION, formerly known as VIACOM, INC., successor by
merger to CBS CORPORATION f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Cross Defendant, represented
by CHARLES F. FORER, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLCOHHOLM &
EWING, PC.

FLOWSERVE, individually and as successor to Durco Pumps, Defendant
and Cross Defendant, represented by WILLIAM D. SANDERS, MCGIVNEY &
KLUGER, LLC.

FMC CORPORATION, individually and as succesor to Northern Pump
Company and Peerless Pumps, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by W. MATTHEW REBER, KELLEY, JASONS, MCGUIRE
& SPINELLI, L.L.P..

GAIL A. ROBINSON, Cross Defendant, represented by ROBERT E. LYTLE,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC.

GARDNER DENVER, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by WILLIAM D. SANDERS, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER,
LLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP &DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GEORGIA- PACIFIC LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by SCOTT ANDREW HARFORD, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY
LLP.

GOULDS PUMPS INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by STEVEN
FREDERIK SATZ, HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., formerly known as ALLIED SIGNAL,
INC. as successor-in-interest to Allied Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical anf The Bendix Corporation, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by JEFFREY A. CARR, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
& JENNIFER LORI MAHER, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
and, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by JOSEPH IRA
FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI,
PLLC.

Tata Chemicals (Soda Ash) Partners, Defendant, represented
by ROBERT JOHN PANSULLA, FINAZZO COSSOLINI O'LEARY & HAGER LLC.
TRANE U.S. INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI,
PLLC.

WILLIAM J. ROBINSON, Cross Defendant, represented by ROBERT E.
LYTLE, SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC.

WOOLSULATE CORP., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in Benefits Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2013, plaintiff Richard J. Rosas, proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint against defendant, the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, seeking a review of a denial of
disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant have consented to proceed for
all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(c).

The Plaintiff presents four issues for decision: (1) whether the
plaintiff was accorded due process at his hearing; (2) whether the
ALJ properly considered the opinion of plaintiff's treating and
examining physicians; (3) whether the ALJ properly relied on the
testimony of the vocational expert; and (4) whether the ALJ
properly discounted plaintiff's credibility.

Having carefully studied the parties' papers, the Administrative
Record and the decision of the ALJ, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California concluded that the ALJ accorded the plaintiff a fair
hearing, properly rejected the opinion of the plaintiff's treating
physician, properly relied on the VE's testimony, and properly
discounted the plaintiff's credibility.  Consequently, the
magistrate judge affirmed the decision of the Commissioner denying
benefits.

The case is RICHARD J. ROSAS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant,
CASE NO. CV 13-2756-SP (C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of the
magistrate judge's decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/l82ho2xfrom Leagle.com.

Richard J Rosas, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Carolyn W Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by Sundeep
R Patel, SAUSA - Office of the United States Attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Ross" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Walter Ross suffers from pseudomesotheliomatous
adenocarcinoma, which he alleges was caused by his occupational
exposure to asbestos in his work as an insulator.  He brought suit
in the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, against several
defendants, including alleged manufacturers and suppliers of
asbestos products, as well as his former employers.  One of the
employer defendants, Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc., filed
a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, seeking to remove pursuant to the Federal
Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a).  The plaintiff
has moved to remand, which District Judge Kirk D. Engelgardt
granted in an order and reasons dated July 15, 2014, a full-text
copy of which is available at http://tinyurl.com/q5rxm5lfrom
Leage.com.

The case is WALTER H. ROSS, SR., ET AL, v. REILLY BENTON, INC., ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1161 (E.D. La.).

Walter H. Ross, Sr., and Helen J. Ross, Plaintiffs, represented by
Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford & Roshawn H. Donahue,
Martzell & Bickford.

Reilly-Benton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz &
Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill &
Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Eagle Inc., Defendant, represented by April Ann McQuillar, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc., as Successor to Rust
Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Robert Edward
Williams, IV, Sulzer & Williams, LLC, Christina L. Falco, Sulzer &
Williams, LLC & Richard P. Sulzer, Sulzer & Williams, LLC.

Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Successor to New Orleans Public
Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn, Entergy
Services, Inc..

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP & Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue
Williams, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Angela M.
Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C..

Hess Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise, Liskow
& Lewis, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Liskow & Lewis & Nora Bolling
Bilbro, Liskow & Lewis.

One Beacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC,
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela
J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

3-M Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Dennis Person,
Aaron & Gianna, PLC.

Mississippi Power Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew W.
McDade, Balch & Bingham, LLP.

FMC Corporation, Individually and as successor in interest to
Peerless Pumps, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..

Royal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Joffe, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey & Jacqueline Romero,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey.

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant, represented
by Edwin Scott Hackenberg, Henchy, Verbois & Hackenberg LLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, incorrectly named Foster Wheeler Corp.,
Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C.,
Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot
L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.


                              *********

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  * * *